Costa Rica - The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility

Transcription

Emission Reductions Program
to the FCPF Carbon Fund
Costa Rica
December 5, 2015
Government of Costa Rica
Ministry of Environment and Energy
1
Table of Contents
Note on the English translation .................................................................................................................... 4
Measurement units ...................................................................................................................................... 5
1. Entities responsible for the management and implementation of the proposed ER Program .................... 6
1.1. ER Program Entity that is expected to sign the Emission Reduction Payment Agreement (ERPA) with
the FCPF Carbon Fund.............................................................................................................................. 6
1.2. Organization(s) responsible for managing the proposed ER Program ................................................ 6
1.3. Partner agencies and organizations involved in the ER Program ........................................................ 8
2. Strategic context and rationale for the ER-program ............................................................................... 10
2.1. Current status of the Readiness Package and summary of additional achievements of readiness
activities in the country .......................................................................................................................... 10
2.2. Ambition and strategic rationale for the ER Program ....................................................................... 10
Proposed measures included in the ER-P................................................................................................ 49
5. Stakeholder Consultation and Participation ........................................................................................... 65
5.1. Description of stakeholder consultation process .............................................................................. 65
5.2. Summary of the comments received and how these views have been taken into account in the design
and implementation of the ER Program ................................................................................................. 70
6. Operational and Financial Planning ........................................................................................................ 84
6.1. Institutional and implementation arrangements .............................................................................. 84
6.2. ER Program budget ......................................................................................................................... 94
7. Carbon pools, sources and sinks.............................................................................................................. 96
7.1. Description of Sources and Sinks selected ........................................................................................ 96
7.2. Description of Carbon pools and GHGes selected ............................................................................. 99
8. Reference level ......................................................................................................................................101
8.1. Reference Period (preliminary). ......................................................................................................101
8.2. Forest definition used in the construction of the Reference Level .................................................. 102
8.3. Average annual historical emissions over the Reference Period ..................................................... 104
8.4. Upward or downward adjustments to the average annual historical emissions over the Reference
Period (if applicable) ............................................................................................................................. 157
8.5. Estimated Reference Level (preliminary) ....................................................................................... 158
8.6. Relation between the Reference Level, the development of a FREL/FRL for the UNFCCC and the
country’s existing or emerging GHG inventory ..................................................................................... 158
9. Approach for Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting ....................................................................... 159
9.1. Measurement, monitoring and reporting approach for estimating emissions occurring under the ER
Program within the Accounting Area ................................................................................................... 159
9.2. Organizational structure for measurement, monitoring andreporting ........................................... 162
9.4. Participation of other players in a variety of actions related to forest control and monitoring ........ 164
10. Displacement ..................................................................................................................................... 166
10.1. Identification of risk of Displacement ........................................................................................... 166
10.2. ER Program design features to prevent and minimize potential Displacement............................. 166
11. Reversals .............................................................................................................................................167
11.1. Identification of risk of Reversals ...................................................................................................167
11.2. ER Program design features to prevent and mitigate Reversals .................................................... 168
11.3. Reversal management mechanism ............................................................................................... 168
11.4. Monitoring and reporting of major emissions that could lead to Reversals of ERs......................... 169
12. Uncertainties of the calculation of emission reductions ....................................................................... 171
12.1. Identification and assessment of sources of uncertainty ................................................................ 171
2
12.2. Quantification of uncertainty in Reference Level setting ............................................................... 172
13. Calculation of Emission Reductions .................................................................................................... 198
13.1. Ex-ante estimation of the Emission Reductions ............................................................................ 198
14. Safeguards ......................................................................................................................................... 202
14.1. Description of how the ER Program meets the World Bank social and environmental safeguards and
promotes and supports the safeguards included in UNFCCC guidance related to REDD+ Error! Bookmark
not defined.
14.2. Description of arrangements to provide information on safeguards during ER Program
implementation ......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
14.3. Description of the Feedback and Grievance Redress Mechanism (FGRM) in place and possible
actions to improve it................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Annex 1: Financial Projections Table for ER-PD ........................................................................................ 226
References mentioned (*Intentionally left in their original languages*) ................................................... 228
References and annexes available online to the public ..............................................................................231
3
Note on the English translation
The reader should note that the official version of Costa Rica’s Emission Reduction Program Document is in
Spanish, this version is available at www.reddcr.go.cr. The current translation to English may have errors.
However, this version is presented to the FMT due to time constraints. Nonetheless, Costa Rica is not
resposible for any errors found in this document. Costa Rica’s REDD+ Secretariat was able to review
sections 1, 2, 3, 4.3., 5, 6, 7, parts of section 8, and 9. The remaining sections remain solely the
responsability of the translator.
4
Measurement units
For all numbers, commas “,” represents the decimal point, for example 5,4. A point is used for thousands, as
in 5.400,20. Emissions and removals (absorptions) are expressed in tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per
year (t CO2-e yr-1). Removals are expressed as negative numbers. Gigagrams (Gg) are not used. For areas,
hectares (ha) are used, unless otherwise specified (e.g. km2 may be used in certain sections of the
document).
5
1. Entities responsible for the management and implementation of
the proposed ER Program
1.1. ER Program Entity that is expected to sign the Emission Reduction Payment
Agreement (ERPA) with the FCPF Carbon Fund
Name of entity
Ministry of the Environment and Energy (MINAE)
Type and description of
organization
MINAE is the government entity in charge of the Costa Rican
environmental policy per the Organic Law of Environment, and
amongst its responsibilities, it must ensure the comprehensive
application of the existing forestry legislation, both in public and in
private areas. MINAE has its own legal identity.
Main contact person
Dr. Édgar Gutiérrez-Espeleta
Title
Minister of the Environment and Energy
Address
Edificio Vista Palace, Calle 25. Avenida 8 y 10, San José, Costa Rica
Telephone
+(506) 2233-4533
Email
[email protected]
Website
www.minae.go.cr
1.2. Organization(s) responsible for managing the proposed ER Program
Same entity as ER Program Entity
identified in 1.1 above?
Yes; because the MINAE is the governmental institution that
concentrates the environmental competences, but for the purposes
of the program management, it will delegate in the State Forestry
Administration, which is part of the National System of
Conservation Areas (SINAC) and to the National Fund for Forest
Financing (FONAFIFO), who will take over their competences
according to the provisions in the current legislation. A Secretariat
for the coordination between both institutions as well as for the
coordination and supervision of actions shall be established by
means of an executive decree.
National Fund for Forest Financing (FONAFIFO): was created by
the Forestry Law, with the purpose of promoting forest
management and reforestation, and to improve the use and
industrialization of Costa Rica’s forest resource. FONAFIFO is also
in charge of obtain financing and manage the program of Payment
for Environmental Services. It is governed by a Board of Directors
that represent different stakeholders of the Forestry sector.
6
Information of contact person
Jorge Mario Rodríguez
Executive Director
(506) 2545-3501
[email protected]
National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC): was created by
the Law of Biodiversity, as a decentralized office of the Ministry of
the Environment and Energy. It has the responsability to issue
forest policies for the sustainable management of natural
resources. The System incorporates to the General Wildlife Office,
the State Forestry Administration and the National Parks Service.
Jointly, these execute their functions and competencies as a single
instance, through the administrative structure of the System,
without prejudice of the objectives for which they were established.
Information of the contact person
Julio Jurado
Director
(506) 2522-6500
[email protected]
7
1.3. Partner agencies and organizations involved in the ER Program
Name of
partner
National
Center of Geoenvironmental
information
(CENIGA)
High-level
committee
Office of the
Minister of the
Environment
and Energy
Contact name,
telephone and email
Álvaro Aguilar
Director
(506)2522-6500
Alvaro.aguilar@recope.
go.cr
Dr. Édgar GutierrezEspeleta
Minister
(506) 2233-4533
ministrominae@minaet
.go.cr
Dr. Édgar GutierrezEspeleta
Minister
(506) 2233-4533
ministrominae@minaet
.go.cr
Core capacity and role in the ER Program

Responsible for the coordination of the Forest Cover
Dynamics and Land Use Change National Monitoring
System according to the Ministerial Guideline DM417-2015.

Responsible for the REDD+ Safeguards Information
System, in coordination with other institutions
involved, such as FONAFIFO and SINAC.

Composed by the directors of the FONAFIFO and the
SINAC, plus two high-level representatives from each
of both institutions.

Its main role is to guarantee the active and responsible
participation of both institutions for the due
implementation of the program measures and policy
actions.

Responds to the political direction of the Minister of
the Environment and Energy.

This committee will be created as part of the decree
being drafted to regulate the implementation of the
Emissions Reduction Program and the National
REDD+ Strategy.

Highest political level of decision making in relation to
the Program

Guarantees consistency with the national development
goals

It is implemented through guidelines and regulations
to define institutional arrangements, as required.
8
National
Meteorological
Institute, of
the Ministry of
the
Environment
and Energy
(IMN)

Juan Carlos Fallas
Director
(506) 2222-5616
[email protected]
Responsible for the Biennial Update Reports, National
Communications and National GHG Inventories
before the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC). Serves as focal point
before the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC).
9
2. Strategic context and rationale for the ER-program
2.1. Current status of the Readiness Package and summary of additional achievements of
readiness activities in the country
As part of the REDD+ Readiness Package (R-Package), Costa Rica performed its self-assessment
considering all relevant stakeholders. This assessment was executed by an external partner to the REDD+
preparation process: the project “Widening Informed Stakeholder Engagement on REDD+” (WISE-REDD+)
implemented by Conservation International in Costa Rica. This project organized, pomoted and facilitated
the country’s self-assessment in July-September, 2015.
The self-assessment began with the Social and Environmental Strategic Assessment (SESA).. The SESA
began in 2011 and is still ongoing, which provides a broad dialogue basis to the Government of Costa Rica
with the relevant stakeholders.
In 2015, the R-Package self-assessment was developed in collaboration with each of the five sectors
identified as a relevant stakeholders. This allowed for the identification of legal, institutional and capacity
gaps, especially in relation to managing REDD+ priorities, improvement needs, achievements and
recommendations during REDD+’s readiness phase. Some of the challenges and weaknesses identified
were: i) low effectiveness in sharing information with relevant stakeholders, ii) limitations in institutional
planning, iii) lack of clarity in the roles of the relevant stakeholders in the REDD+ and iv) the formalization
of processes by the REDD+ Secretariat to facilitate decision making at the sector level. However, this must
be understood in light of the expectations that stakeholders may have, which also have changed with the
progress made on international negotiations on REDD+.
During the self-assessment, there was clear evidence of the difference in opinions showed by the
indigenous sector and the rest of the stakeholders. This may be attributed to the more intensive REDD+
readiness process conducted with the indigenous peoples. To ensure success in the next stage of the
National REDD+ Strategy, the results of the self-assessment suggest that more information need to be
provided to non-indigenous stakeholders and to increase, as feasible, the overall participation of all
relevant stakeholders.
2.2. Ambition and strategic rationale for the ER Program
Strategic Role of the Emissions Reduction Program
Historically, Costa Rica has been a strong proponent of green, sustainable development, particularly in
regards to the protection of natural resources, forests and their environmental services. In its Political
Constitution, Costa Rica has provided for the fundamental right of a “healthy and ecologically balanced
environment, and the responsibility of the State to guarantee it”. In the Costa Rican mindset,
environmental protection occupies a privileged position and enjoys popular support, although some areas
are recognized to have more progress than others, where significant efforts are still needed.
It is with this spirit that Costa Rica presents its Emissions Reduction Program (ER-P) to the FCPC Carbon
Fund, as an additional opportunity to achieve a low carbon economy in a resilient environment. The ER-P is
10
part of the Forests and Rural Development Program1 (Figure 2.2.1.). The latter is an ambitious platform
promoted by the Costa Rica to streamline the implementation of the National Forestry Development Plan.
Further, the ER-P is key to make progress towards Carbon Neutrality and constitutes a central axis of Costa
Rica’s Nationally Determined Intentional Contribution (INDC).
The ER-P is focused on increasing the impact of public policies that have proven successful in the last 20
years of implementation of the current Forestry Law. The ER-P heavily relies on the prohibition to convert
forests to other land uses, but also seeks to strengthen the Protected Areas System to guarantee the
conservation of critical biodiversity and the Payment for Environmental Services (PSA) program as a policy
instrument to guarantee forest conservation and carbon (C) stock enhancement through reforestation, tree
plantations, agroforestry and silvopastoral systems.
A goal of the ER-P’s is to increase participation of all stakeholders, both public and private, including
indigenous territories whose property regime is communal. Along this line, the ER-P seeks to generate new
alternatives to enable the participation of people with unclear land-tenure rights. Stakeholders may
implement all five REDD+ activities across the country, with the purpose of achieving the highest possible
emissions reduction offer.at the national level.
There is an undeniable political will in the country to reduce emissions, conserve forest carbon stocks, and
increase the ambition of mitigation actions, while actively seeking to eradicate poverty, which constitutes
the core of the National Development Plan. A goal of the ER-P’s is to contribute to both, as well as to
promote entrepreneurship among micro, small and medium forestry-related producers and land-owners.
11 The
Forests and Rural Development Program is an initiative of current government administration. Its objective is to
assist the implementation of key elements of the National Forestry Development Plan. Besides the National REDD+
Strategy, the Forests and Rural Development Program includes the following initiatives: 1. Green and inclusive
development program in rural productive territories, 2. Economic reactivation for the production, transformation and
commercialization of sustainable forestry products and generation of income for the rural sector, 3. Policy for the
Protected Wildlife Areas of the National System of Conservation Areas and 4.Strengthening of the State’s Natural
Heritage.
11
Figure 2.2.1. Relation of the Forests and Rural Development Program with National REDD+ Strategy and Costa Rica’s
ER-P to the FCPC Carbon Fund. The ER-P includes all the REDD+ activities per decision 1/CP.16, p.70, but they are
implemented in phases. The ER-P starts with the activities in gray (Phase I), and gradually incorporates the remaining
activities in its Phase II, which requires improvements in accounting data and methods. Although the emission
reductions of the ER-P are initially offered to the Carbon Fund for the first three activities, the Benefit-Sharing
Mechanism considers the financing of all REDD+ activities (see Section 15).
Progress since the ER-PIN
The concept of the ER-P has significantly evolved since the Carbon Fund endorsed Costa Rica’s ER-PIN. The
current ER-P includes new financing opportunities identified by stakeholders during SESA, as well as during
the information and pre-consultation process of the National REDD+ Strategy.
In terms of C accounting, Costa Rica initially presented a programmatic approach mainly focused on the
expansion of the PSA. However, the current ER-P includes more policy measures. For example, SINAC’s
policy framework for reducing illegal logging and the impact of forest fires. The current ER-P proposes
national-level accounting, with multiple policies and measures.
Additionally, the current ER-P addresses essential issues related to governance (e.g. help in solving landtenure conflicts and development of new financing options for areas under special land-tenure regimes).
Therefore, the ER-P still includes the ambition initially proposed in the ER-PIN, and in addition to that,
seeks to improve and expand existing financing mechanisms. An important novelty in the current ER-P is
12
the proposal of additional, more flexible PSA modalities for indigenous territories and small forestry and
agroforestry producers.
Ambition of current and future programs
The ER-P is based on forestry policies and programs implemented in the last three decades, besides
additional measures to increase their effectiveness, improve governance efficiency, and address key
drivers of deforestation and forest degradation (Section 4.3.). Mainly, it is through SINAC’s policy
framework and FONAFIFO’s PSA program, as well as other policy instruments and mechanisms included in
the current Forestry Law, that Costa Rica has been able to demonstrate an early REDD+ implementation
(Figure 2.2.2.) . Thanks to these policies and programs, Costa Rica has protected a significant portion of its
territory in Protected Conservation Areas since 1970 (today they cover 26% of the country’s continental
territory). Ecotourism, a national GDP driver, positively affects rural economies, especially, in coastal zones
and highly depends on these Protected Conservation Areas.
FONAFIFO’s PSA program was also instrumental in achieving early REDD+ results. The PSA was expanded
thanks to two loans from World Bank known as Ecomercados I y II. Ecomercados’ global goal was to secure
the conservation of critical biodiversity and to guarantee its long-term sustainability by implementing
market-based mechanisms. Ecomercados II ended in 2014, its results are available in the project’s final
reports, including information on the measures taken to comply with the World Bank’s operational policies.
This also sets an applicable management framework to follow-up REDD+ safeguards under the UNFCCC.
FONAFIFO’s PSA program is based on the principle that “whoever contaminates pays”. The PSA is mainly
financed by 3,5% of the national fuel tax and from a fee for water use. As of 2013, the PSA compensated
environmental services of over 1 million hectares of forest (120.000 hectares in indigenous territories), with
an investment of more than $400 million in the most economically depressed rural areas. The ER-P intends
to obtain additional financial resources to strengthen the PSA.
In 2010, a more ambitious phase of REDD+ began, which mainly reflected an increase in ambition of
FONAFIFO’s PSA. Simultaneaously, SINAC continued giving payment for expropriated forest lands in
Protected Conservation Areas. SINAC also intensified its fire control and illegal logging operations, e.g. by
enforcing the use of Forest Transport Permits.
Moreover, In addition to the policies and programs described above, the ER-P sets forth six new forestry
policies, particularly addressed to support some of the stakeholders’ special interests. Similarly, many of
the policy actions explained in the ER-P are designed with the aim to solve deficiencies of current programs.
For instance, through a new PSA modalities for indigenous territories, Costa Rica may enable a more
appropriate cultural management of forests, according to the cultural customs and principles of the
indigenous territories. Another example is the design of more flexible financing mechanisms that may
operate in areas under special land-tenure regimes or where land-tenure is unclear. An important proposal
of the ER-P is the strenghening of managerial capacities in the private forestry sector in order to increase
production of timber and non-timber forest products.. Since Costa Rica pursues the implementation of all
REDD+ activites, the ER-P seeks to generate the enabling and complementary measures to current
programs.
13
Figure 2.2.2. Forest program cover for the conservation of forests in Costa Rica. PES Farms are properties
registered in FONAFIFO’s PSA.
Early REDD+ actions and forest conservation
In 2013 (latest year with land cover information), Costa Rica had 2.215.543 hectares (ha) of primary forests2
(44% of the national territory). Including secondary forests and other forest lands, Costa Rica had a total
3.134.026 ha of forest cover in 2013 (61% of the territory3). Maintaining more than half of the county’s forest
cover has been a significant achievement, which results from multiple laws, policies and programs, which in
turn have required important investments. Besides the financial implications of maintaning standing
forests, Costa Rica has imposed strong measures against deforestation by making forest conversion illegal,
which greatly affects forest- owners. Today, these forests fulfill an invaluable environmental function, by
providing numerous social and environmental benefits and by protecting a significant portion of the
planet’s biodiversity.
2
3
Primary forests are defined as those forests that were present in 1986 and are still standing.
Includes tree plantations, mangroves, “yolillales” and palm forests, as well as primary and secondary forests.
14
Considering the period 1986-2013, annual gross anthropogenic deforestation4 has decreased in time. In the
1980s deforestation was close to 50,000 ha/yr, in 1990s it was 38,000 ha/yr, and after 2000 deforestation
diminished to 27,000 ha/yr. At the same time, forest regeneration (new forests) has substantially increased.
In 1986, new, growing forests covered 417,000 ha, while in 2013, the area increased to 918,000 ha. (Figure
2.2.2.).
In this context, Costa Rica can show evidence that i) it has been able to maintain a large proportion of its
primary forests, ii) it has been able to reduce deforestation, and iii) it has promoted the regeneration of new
forests. Much of this happened prior to the Conference of the Parties (COP) in Bali and Cancun..
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
Conserved forests
2,000,000
1,500,000
Forest regeneration (new
forests)
1,000,000
Deforestation
500,000
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
900,000
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
Forest regeneration
(new forests)
300,000
Deforestation
200,000
100,000
-
4
Includes harvesting of tree plantations, defined as forest or forest lands.
15
Figure 2.2.2. Area of forest conservation, deforestation and forest regeneration for 1986-2009. The graphic
below does not include forest conservation to provide more detail on forest regeneration and deforestation
for the same period.
Implementation stages of REDD+ under the Convention and the role of the Emissions Reduction Program
The ER-P is Costa Rica’s next step to scale up REDD+ implementation.. As shown in Figure 2.2.1., the first
phase of the ER-P is based on the implementation of three REDD+ activities; namely, emissions reduction
from deforestation, conservation and enhancement of forest C stocks. Future phases of the ER-P (and the
National REDD+ Strategy) will include CO2 absorptions from tree plantations, emissions reductions from
forest degradation and sustainable management of forests.
The ER-P is how Costa Rica plans to implement its National REDD+ Strategy, so it may produce more
emission reductions that could be purchased by the FCPF Carbon Fund. These additional emission
reductions may be sold to other buyers, reported to the UNFCCC for results-based payments or used
internally for different purposes. The current ambition of the ER-P may be increased as predictable funding
is identified in a timely manner. According to the 2012 national GHG inventory, Costa Rica’s LULUCF sector
is a net sink, but opportunities for forest enhancement and emissions reduction still exist and have been
identified elswhere in this document.
Consistency with national policies and development priorities
The six policies presented here are meant to complement the National Forestry Development Plan.
Moreover, some of the Plan’s policies and measures are implemented through the ER-P. At the same time,
the ER-P is part of the Forests and Rural Development Plan, a political initiative to further assist in the
implementation of the National Forestry Development Plan (Figure 2.2.1). The Forests and Rural
Development Program could include other strategies, actions and activities in the future, as determined by
the Ministry of the Environment and Energy.
In terms of national strategic planning, the ER-P was defined as a specific goal of the National Development
Plan5, enjoying a privileged position in the highest level of strategic planning. The ER-P will also support
other strategic goals included in the National Strategy on Climate Change, both in mitigation and in
adaptation, especially in relation to Carbon Neutrality and in increasing ecosystem and human population
resilience to climate change. Further, the ER-P has a strong social component and seeks to increase the
participation of stakeholders in order to reduce poverty, especially in rural areas.
Payment expectation for emissions reduction
According to Costa Rica’s R-PP and ER-PIN6, the National REDD+ Strategy and, therefore, the ER-P started
in 2010. For this reason, Costa Rica has the expectation that the FCPF Carbon Fund will recognize the
emissions reduction from 2010 .
Costa Rica is not expecting the FCPF Carbon Fund to pay for tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (t CO 2-e)
from the conservation of forest C stocks, as explained in Section 7.
Measured emission reductions in 2010-2013
Since the beginning of the ER-P (2010), deforestation of primary forests decreased from 14,657.49 ha per
yr-1 (1996-2009) to 8,148.20 ha yr-1 (2010-2013), which produced an emissions reduction of -7,539,269 t CO25Program
2.4.of National Development Plan 2015-2018.
basis for the letter of intention signed by the Government of Costa Rica with the World Bank for the
payment of $63.000.000 or 12.000.000 t CO2e, per resolution Nº CFM/5/2012/1 of the Carbon Fund during its fifth
meeting in Paris (16-17 October, 2012).
6 Technical
16
e (-1,884,817 t CO2-e yr-1). At the same time, deforestation of secondary forests (or “new forests”)
increased from 16,304.07 ha yr-1 (1996-2009) to 21,277.40 ha yr-1 (2010-2013), resulting in an increase of
emissions of 1,619,463 t CO2-e (404,866 t CO2-e yr-1). Overall, emissions reduction from deforestation
resulted in -5,882,845 t CO2-e (-1,470,711 t CO2-e year-1) for 2010-2013, when compared to the average for
1996-2009. In terms of C stock enhancement, the area of new forests increased from 738,454.74 ha year-1
(1996-2009) to 856,135.30 ha year-1 (2010-2013), which resulted in the removal of -20,694,952 t CO2-e (5,173,731 t CO2-e year-1).Globally for 2010-2013, the ER-P produced net emissions of of -8,889,739 t CO2-e (2,222,435 t CO2-e yr-1) (Figure 2.2.3.).
Table 2.2.2. Emission reductions for 2010-2013.
Historical reference period: 1996-2009
REDD+Activity
ha
DF.an.to
DF.an.bp
DF.an.bn
AE.bn
433,461.87
205,204.89
228,256.98
ha-1
30,961.56
14,657.49
16,304.07
738,454.74
Total
t CO2-e
t CO2-e yr-1
101,050,331
74,102,791
26,947,539
-61,908,107
7,217,881
5,293,057
1,924,824
-4,422,008
39,142,223
2,795,873
Gross and net emissions and removals in 2010-2013
REDD+Activity
DF.an.to
DF.an.bp
DF.an.bn
AE.bn
ha
117,702.36
32,592.78
85,109.58
ha-1
29,425.59
8,148.20
21,277.40
856,135.30
Total
t CO2-e
t CO2-e yr-1
22,988,678
13,632,957
9,355,721
-20,694,952
5,747,170
3,408,239
2,338,930
-5,173,731
2,293,726
573,432
Net emission reductions for 2010-2013
REDD+Activity
DF.an.to
DF.an.bp
DF.an.bn
AE.bn
Total
ha
-6,143.85
-26,037.17
19,893.32
470,722.24
ha-1
-1,535.96
-6,509.29
4,973.33
117,680.56
t CO2-e
t CO2-e yr-1
-5,882,845
-7,539,269
1,656,424
-3,006,894
-1,470,711
-1,884,817
414,106
-751,724
-8,889,739
-2,222,435
Note:DF.an.to = Total anthropogenic deforestation; DF.an.bp = Anthropogenic deforestation of primary
forests; DF.an.bn = Anthropogenic deforestation of new forests; AE.bn = increase of forest C stocks in new
forests.
2.3. Political commitment
The political commitment to implement the ER-P is straightforward, as the ER-P is part of the National
Development Plan for 2015-2018. More broadly, Costa Rica’s political commitment to reducing emissions
and forest conservation of forests has been very clear in its environmental legislation, sectoral and crosssectoral goals. For example, forest conversion was prohibited by law since 1996. Also, multiple forestrelated environmental services were defined by law and a fund was established to pay for them.
Additionally, the Biodiversity Law created SINAC to manage programs to reduce illegal logging and the
impact of forest fires at the national level. Costa Rica also created a robust and extensive system of
17
Protected Conservation Areas with several management categories. Most national parks and biological
reserves are strategically located to create biological corridors, protect high-conservation value forests and
avoid the loss of key forest species.
Other examples of political commitment are:

The ER-P was validated by the Minister of MINAE,

The President confirmed the intention of achieving Carbon Neutrality during the New York
Climate Summit in 2014, and included forests as an important part of this strategy,

The Minister of MINAE spoke of the country’s intention to develop a Forests and Rural
Development Program at COP 20. This program aims to move towards an integrated approach to
manage rural landscapes, while reducing poverty,

In an official mandate, the Minister of MINAE issued guidelines to facilitate the implementation of
the National Forestry Development Plan for 2014-2018, mainly focused on the economic
reactivation of timber production, as well as the transformation and marketing of forest products
in order to increase revenue in the rural sector,

Costa Rica initiated dialogues with multiple sectors to prepare the INDC submitted to the UNFCCC
in October 2015; the INDC includes the forestry sector and the National REDD+ Strategy,

Currently, an executive decree is under preparation to define responsibilities and roles of the public
sector (and public institutions) for the implementation of the ER-P and the National REDD+
Strategy. This decree will also help clarify the organizational structure and implementation
framework of the ER-P.
18
3. ER-Program Location
3.1. Accounting Area of the Emission Reduction Program
Location
Costa Rica is located at 9º56’0” N, 84º5’0” W, in the American continent. The ER-P is implemented at the
national scale, but excludes Coco Island7.The ER-P’s six policies described in Section 4.3. are implemented
across the entire territory..
The accounting area of the ER-P is slightly smaller than the continental territory of Costa Rica. Out of the
total continental territory (5.113.939 ha not counting Coco Island), 6.105 ha have been excluded (0,12% of
the total) in active volcanoes areas, 13,873 hectares (0,27% of the total) of natural water bodies and 115.364
hectares (2,6% of the total) of clouds and cloud shadows. In total, the accounting area is 4.978.596.42
hectares (97,35% of the continental territory) (Figure 3.1.1.). Land cover changes in areas impacted by
active volcanoes or natural water bodies are considered non-anthropogenic and thus remain excluded of
the accounting area. As explained in Section 8, anthropogenic emissions are not part of the reference level
or the estimation of emission reductions.
However, the accounting area is not static and will have to be reviewed in every measurement period,
considering that new areas may have been affected by natural disturbances and/or new cloud-covered may
appear8. Therefore, if found necessary, future measurement reports may include an updated map of the
accounting area showing excluded areas. Conversely, areas may be included again in the accounting area if
activity data (AD) is recalculated during the ERPA term, or if areas previously excluded due to natural
disturbances have recovered to their original condition.
More details and explanations on the accounting area can be found in section 3.1 of CDI (2015.c)9.
7Coco
Island is a remote location (5º31’08” N and 87º04’18” W) is located 542 kilometers from the Costa Rican pacific
coast, with no significant human population. Few park rangers live there, but they do not perform production activities.
The island has suffered biological degradation with the introduction of exotic species. There is no displacement of
emissions to Coco Island product of REDD+ implementation.
8 As explained in a separate report (Agresta et al., 2015.a), global databases are available to fill no-information or cloudcoverted areas without introducing a greater bias in the activity data, for instance, due to differences in the definition
for “forest”. In fact, Agresta et al. (2015.a) filled between 0.49% and 1.83% of the seven land-cover maps, which served
as the base for compiling the activity data time series. Gap filling was done for years following 2000 with the Global
Forest Change project (Hansen, et al., 2013).
9 CDI, 2015.b. Reference level of emissions and forest removal in Costa Rica and methodology used to build it. Report of
consultancy prepared for the Government of Costa Rica under the Carbon Fund of the Cooperative Fund for Forest
Carbon (FCPF). 223 p.
19
Figure 3.1.1. Accounting area of the ER-P. Areas excluded in active volcanoes (6.105 ha) are shown in red,
natural water bodies (13.873 ha) in blue, clouds and cloud shadows (115.364 ha) in black, and the accounting
area (4.978.596 ha) in yellow. The accounting area represents 97,35% of the country’s continental territory.
Additionally, the maps shows the Ministry of national Planning’s (MIDEPLAN) regions and the indigenous
territories (see legend below), as suggested by the Carbon Fund’s Technical Advisory Panel (TAP).
No.
NAME
1
HUETAR DE ZAPATON INDIGENOUS TERRITORY
2
CABECAR DE UJARRAS INDIGENOUS TERRITORY
3
4
TERRABA INDIGENOUS TERRITORY
5
CABECAR DE TELIRE INDIGENOUS TERRITORY
6
CABECAR DE TAYNI INDIGENOUS TERRITORY
7
BRIBRI DE SALITRE INDIGENOUS TERRITORY
8
9
HUETAR DE QUITIRRISI INDIGENOUS TERRITORY
10
GUAYMI DE OSA INDIGENOUS TERRITORY
11
CABECAR DE NAIRI-AWARI INDIGENOUS TERRITORY
12
13
MATAMBU INDIGENOUS TERRITORY
14
BRIBRI DE KEKÖLDI (COCLES) INDIGENOUS TERRITORY
20
No.
NAME
15
GUATUSO INDIGENOUS TERRITORY
16
BRUNKA DE CURRE (REY CURRE) INDIGENOUS TERRITORY
17
GUAYMI DE COTO BRUS INDIGENOUS TERRITORY
18
GUAYMI DE CONTEBURICA INDIGENOUS TERRITORY
19
CABECAR DE CHIRRIPO (DUCHII) INDIGENOUS TERRITORY
20
21
BRIBRI DE CABAGRA INDIGENOUS TERRITORY
22
BRIBRI DE CABAGRA INDIGENOUS TERRITORY
23
CABECAR DE TALAMANCA INDIGENOUS TERRITORY
24
BRIBRI DE TALAMANCA INDIGENOUS TERRITORY
25
BRUNKA DE BORUCA INDIGENOUS TERRITORY
26
CABECAR DE BAJO CHIRRIPO INDIGENOUS TERRITORY
27
28
GUAYMI DE ABROJOS-MONTEZUMA INDIGENOUS TERRITORY
29
GUAYMI DE ALTOS DE SAN ANTONIO INDIGENOUS TERRITORY
30
CHINA KICHA INDIGENOUS TERRITORY
31
CHINA KICHA INDIGENOUS TERRITORY
32
33
34
TERRABA INDIGENOUS TERRITORY
35
36
37
38
39
BRUNKA DE BORUCA INDIGENOUS TERRITORY
40
41
42
CABECAR DE TALAMANCA INDIGENOUS TERRITORY
43
BRIBRI DE TALAMANCA INDIGENOUS TERRITORY
3.2. Environmental and social conditions in the Accounting Area of the ER Program
Geography, vegetation and climate
Costa Rica, a Central American country with a population of 4.592.14910, is located in the tropical region
and is characterized for having a wide variety of climates that have resulted in 12 different ecological and
forest zones (Figure 3.2.1.). Due to geographical, atmospheric and oceanic factors, the country has been
divided in seven big climate regions: North Pacific, Central Pacific, South Pacific, Central Zone, North Zone,
North Caribbean Region, and South Caribbean Region. With 51.139 km 2 of continental area, the country has
34 hydrological basins, amongst which Tárcoles and Reventazón are two of the main ones. It has a
heterogeneous relief, subject to the action of important variable climate and biological conditions; it is a
10
Data for 2011 of the National Statistics and Census Institute
21
mainly mountainous country, whose Northwest-Southeast axis shows mountain ranges and chains whose
higher peaks are Chirripó with3.879 m above sea level 11and Kamuk with 3.564 m above sea level.
In general terms, two climate arrangements appear: Pacific and Caribbean, both with dry and rainy
seasons. The most frequent meteorological events and that cause extreme events are: tropical depressions,
tropical storms, hurricanes, tropical depressions, low-pressure systems, troughs, and cold fronts. Any of
these phenomena if intense, may cause flooding.
Moreover, the variability of climate in Costa Rica is more related to the phenomenon “El Niño” South
Oscillation. During El Niño, there is a higher probability for the Pacific area and the Central region to
experience dry to extreme dry conditions, while in the Caribbean there is a higher probability of extremely
rainy scenarios.
Land-cover
Color
11Meters above
Description
Forest lands (FL)- Primary forests
Lands converted to FL – New forests
Cropland - permanent
Cropland – annual
Grassland
Settlements
Area
Ha
2,265,429.96
770,395.05
323,930.52
242,276.76
1,260,219.24
43,086.69
sea level
22
Wetlands - natural
21,875.85
Wetlands - artificial
294.12
Other land - moor
10,422.45
Other land–natural bare lands
1,948.32
Other land–artificial bare lands
58,696.38
No information – clouds and shadows
115,364.16
Total Area
5,113,939.50
Figure 3.2.1.Types of forests and non-forest areas for 2007/2008 using classified LANDSAT images,
considering the land use categorization of IPCC in its 2006 guides.
According to Holdridge’s life zone’s classification system and based on environmental factors such as
wetness, precipitation and temperature, there are 12 life zones in Costa Rica. The most prominent zones
are the very tropical rain forest (29,8% of the country), very wet premontane (15,5%), tropical wet (13,5%),
and pluvial lowland montane (13,2%). These ecosystems take place in a high variability of parental material
and lands, distributed in a heterogeneous relief and subject to the action of very variable climatic and
biological conditions. The most common type of land is inceptisol, covering 38,8% of the territory;
however, there is also presence of ultisols (21%), andisols (14,4%), entisols (12,4%) and alfisols
(9,6%).Vertisols do not exceed the 2%.
Likewise, the interaction of a diversity of climate and altitudinal variables, a geological history very active in
emersions, subsidence and volcanism, have caused that since its origins as part of an isthmus, Costa Rica
has been a biological bridge where multiple species of flora and fauna coexist. It is estimated that 4% of the
planet’s terrestrial species are found in Costa Rica, even though it only has 0.01% of the global extension,
which constitutes a heritage and a natural resource of big proportions 12. Of the 500,000 species calculated
for the country, only an approximate of 87,000 (17,4%) have been described. More than 79% of these
species described are arthropods. Plants compose the other majority group, of which an approximate
10,979 species have been described. Of the total diversity described for the world, approximately 6%
corresponds to Costa Rica.
There is a high degree of endemism in the country. It is estimated that 12% of the Costa Rica plants are
endemic (some 1,200 species) and are distributed in different locations. For the group of fresh water fish, it
is estimated that there is 14% endemism. This way, factors such as the disappearance of the forest mass,
the destruction and alteration of ecosystems, illegal hunting, overexploitation, the introduction of exotic
species, the indiscriminate use of pesticides, the illegal trade of species and pollution pose a strong effect
and many species are suffering a reduction in their populations, in a way that they can be considered
threatened or vulnerable in the country. The World Union’s red list of threatened species mentions Costa
Rica with 242 endangered species out of which 111 are plants, 62 amphibians, 20 fish and 17 birds.
Economic and political conditions
Costa Rica has an old democratic, pacifist tradition, respectful of human rights. For instance, education was
declared free and mandatory in 1869, the army was abolished in 1949, social guaranties of access for all
Costa Ricans were enacted back in 1943 and the existence of a rule of law regime and democratic
governments have produced a recognized political stability 13.
During the last 20 years, most households improved their life conditions, thanks to the combination of
economic growth and a higher social public investment. Revenues were increased in general, within a
12Obando,
2002. Citado en la Estrategia Nacional de Control y Manejo del Fuego 2012-2021 del Sistema Nacional de
Áreas de Conservación.
13 Vigésimo Informe Estado de la Nación del 2014.
23
framework of liberty and rights, and a better protection of them. It is still, as it was twenty years ago, a
“middle income” country, and according to UNDP’s classification, of “high human development”; however,
the country’s challenge is to improve the inequality in income, the reduction of poverty, the inequity of
labor markets and environmental unsustainability, within the context of a new development model.
Between 2013 and 2014, the economy grew at a moderate pace, with acceleration and slowdown mini
cycles, in a low inflation context. This growth was accompanied by a relatively high unemployment level
(8,5%), a higher dynamism in the creation of informal jobs. Health, education and access to public services
indexes continued to improve, as well as the average income of families. However, poverty remained
stagnant in close to 20%. And in the political arena, the country held free and clear democratic elections for
its sixteenth time, the longest sequence of this nature in Latin America. The country evolved towards a
multiparty system.
Costa Rica has environmental strengths which are part of its image and historic evolution, and that have
positioned it in the world as a responsible and innovative country in ecological issues. Conservation
continues to be the country’s biggest strength, even though the protected continental surface has not
suffered significant changes, in four years, the marine area almost tripled. Progress in knowledge has
allowed the detection of threats to the integrity of ecosystems. Nevertheless, important fragmentations,
few forests with high integrity and strong pressures on land use have also been identified.
Linguistic and socio-cultural diversity
Costa Rica has 24 indigenous territories covering 334.447 hectares, who are the result of two cultural
horizons: the Mesoamerican and the Chibchoid. Both are characterized for the cultivation of lands, for
basing their diet in corn, cocoa, roots, tubers, wild animals hunting and fishery; but most of all, they
maintain a cultural, philosophic and socioeconomic relation with forest resources. 60% of the indigenous
population in the country speak their ancestral language, specifically Bribris 55%, Bruncas 6&, Cabécares
88%, Chorotegas 0,4%, Huetares 0,4%, Malekus 68%, Ngöbes 78% andTeribes 10%.
With regards to small and mid- sized agro forestry producers, the 100% speak Spanish. The country has 12
life zones at heights that go from 0 to 3,800 m above sea level, which produced a variety of ecosystems,
types of land, microclimates, geography, etc.; it caused that the peasant culture adapted to so diverse
conditions producing a particular rural landscape depending on each region (diverse crops, farm sizes,
economy and technology adapted to each climate and land conditions).Regarding the socioeconomic
indicators, in this sector, the average population has grown old and the youngest abandon the farms in
search of better opportunities, the average age of peasants is now 50-54 years, and most of them are
males.
Lifestyles and the dependency of local populations on forest resources
According to the National Population Census of 2011, there are 104,143 indigenous people in Costa Rica, of
which 48,500 live in their territories. The indigenous homes located in territories add up to 11.853. Of that
total, 62,8% performs some sort of productive agricultural activity.13% worked on crops during the last
year; 11% own cattle, pigs, poultry, others for self-consumption; therefore 63% have performed at least one
agricultural activity. Of the 7.204 indigenous agricultural employees, 88% are male and 12% female, and
the position they occupy in this activity corresponds to 2% employers, 69% self-employed workers and 20%
employees of private companies. In terms of environmental protection, it is evidenced that the locations
where the indigenous peoples exist, match the big remnants of protected areas in the country; their close
relationship with nature is also recognized to indigenous peoples, its resources are the fundamental basis of
their identity and because of its cosmogonic component, vital for community life.
For the sector of small and medium forestry and agro forestry producers, 30% of the farms in the country
are covered by forest, indicating a change of vocation and conscience of many farmers. On the other hand,
livestock farming has remained an important activity at the national level. However, the main economic
activity is agriculture, which varies according to the country zone. The Central Region represents 92% of
24
the lands planted reported in the agricultural census and is characterized by the production of vegetables
with a high technological degree. The Chorotega Region is the one with the biggest production of meat
cattle in the country; besides, in the agricultural field, it can be affirmed that Guanacaste is the main
producer of grains because of its diversification (rice, beans, sorghum, as well as non-traditional products
such as coffee). In the Brunca Region; its economy is based in the agriculture of basic grains, especially corn
and beans, as well as Oil palm and pineapple.80% of the country banana is planted in the Caribbean region,
and along with the pineapple farms, offers employment to many growers; in the North Huetar Region there
are more farming lands; their economy is based in the agriculture of basic grains, sugarcane, coffee,
plantains, banana and non-traditional export products such as citric, cardamom, pineapple, passion fruit,
papaya, yucca, ornamental plants and some others.
25
4. Description of actions and interventions to be implemented
under the proposed ER Program.
4.1. Analysis of drivers and underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation,
and existing activities that can lead to conservation or enhancement of forest carbon
stockss
Methodology for the analysis of forest cover change factors
The factors that determined the dynamics and distribution of deforestation (and forest regeneration) in
Costa Rica were studied for the period 1987-2013 at two scales: a) at the national level, and b) at the
regional level14. It is assumed that the deforestation agents, individuals or companies, make decisions on
transforming the forest areas into agricultural areas or settlements, or on abandoning the agricultural areas
to allow, with or without the intention of doing it, the regeneration of natural vegetation based on the
benefits perceived. These benefits, in turn, are directly linked to biophysical local factors such as the quality
of soil, socio-economic factors such as the availability of labor force, and institutional factors such as
regulations on land use, as well as regional, national and global factors such as market access for the local
products and their prices.
Indirect factors such as the exchange and interest rates that influence prices and markets, or historical
factors such as colonization policies or the investment in education affecting the applicability of certain
agricultural technologies or the access to rural employment outside of the agricultural sector, also
condition the decisions on land use and the evolution of regional landscapes. The accumulation of decisions
relatively similar and contemporary of close agents of change in response to direct and indirect shared
factors build landscapes with typical and predictable characteristics.
The statistics on the dynamics of change for land-cover in Costa Rica between 1987 and 2013 were
estimated based on the crossed tabulation of the temporary series of maps used as the basis for the
construction of the reference level (Section 8). This temporary series included some modifications
suggested in the regional workshops held during the study. The reference used to estimate the levels of
loss of forest cover at the national and regional levels is the potential forestry cover of the different types of
forests, including yolillales and mangroves.
Forest areas can only grow once the regeneration is higher than deforestation; it is not sufficient that the
deforestation be zero. Therefore, in order to identify the factors that determine the magnitude and
distribution of the changes in forest cover in the country, the space-temporary patterns of gross
deforestation and the gross regeneration of native forests during the analysis periods were studied. These
two components are basically different. The deforestation statistics reflect contemporary conditions and
processes to the deforestation observed. The regeneration statistics, on the other hand, reflect conditions
and processes that took place 10-20 years before being observed, when the users of deforested areas
previously decided to abandon them or to allow the forest to regenerate.
The regional analysis is focused in identifying zones of homogeneous deforestation processes. The zones
share distinctive land-cover paths, with complex historical and geographical patterns of the absolute and
qualitative forest cover that responds to an integrated logic of land use and to a context of ecological
diversity. For the clustering of cantons in the zones, the first stage was to cluster the 81 cantons of the
country by using the Two-Step Cluster procedure according to 3 indicators: the intensity of deforestation
during the period 2001-2011, the cantonal trend of deforestation during the period 1987-2001 and 200114
CDI, 2015.d. Patterns and factors of change in the natural forest cover of Costa Rica, 1987-2013. Report prepared for
the Government of Costa Rica under the Carbon Fund of the Forest Carbon Facility (FCPF). 57 p.
26
2011, and the final land use (i.e. 2013). In a second stage, these clusters were manually refined with a logical
analysis of their characteristics and the expert criteria. Lastly, this regionalization was reviewed by local
experts in five consultation workshops. The zones are not perfectly homogeneous due to the fact that the
unity of analysis, the canton, frequently includes areas with different ecological, economic and cultural
characteristics. The zones attempt to reflect the conditions and process that are dominant in each of them.
Once the zones were structured, global statistics on land use and agricultural productive systems were
calculated for each of them, based on the maps mentioned above. The statistics on population dynamics,
employment and migration were also estimated for each zone.
Spatial-temporary patterns of the forest cover change: 1987-2013
Costa Rica has achieved progress in the creation of the Protected Wildlife Areas System, the fight against
deforestation, the recovery of forest cover, the creation of supporting institutions, the sustainable
sustainable management of forest, and the development of financial and market instruments for the
conservation and recovery of forest ecosystems. Currently (2013), Costa Rica has 2.215.543 ha of primary
forests (43% of the national territory) besides a total 3.134.026 ha of forest cover (61% of the territory).
The natural forest area in Costa Rica shows a clear recovery trend. The country moved from being a net
loser to a net winner of native forests between 1997 and 2008.During this period, the net deforested area
gradually fell from the beginning of the period and the net regenerated area grew consistently towards the
end of the period (2013) (Figure 4.1.1.).
R² = 0.7628
2011-2013
Cambio Neto Anual de
Annual Net
Forest
la Cobertura
Forestal
Cover Change for
en Período
the period
2008-2011
2001-2008
Cambio Neto Total de
Total NetForestal
Forest
la Cobertura
Change for the
en Período
period
1997-2001
1992-1997
Linear
(Cambio
Neto
Lineal
(Annual
Net
Anual
de la
Cobertura
Forest
cover
Forestal
enfor
Período)
change
the
1987-1992
period)
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
Figure 4.1.1. Change in Costa Rica’s forest areas for the period 1987-2013. Units in km2.
This trend reflects, at the same time, the trends in both components of change in forest areas. Along the
whole period, the gross area deforested annually fell from approximately 550km 2 per year to 300 km2 per
year, a reduction of approximately 40% (Figure 4.1.2.). During this period, the regeneration of natural
forestry areas in Costa Rica showed a general recovery trend, most of all due to the fast growth of the
regenerated forestry area from the end of year 200o on. This regeneration reflects processes that might
have started 15 to 20 years earlier, when the decision of abandoning or of letting recover the vegetation
was made, but it only measures the fraction available at the time it was accounted as forest. Therefore, it
underestimates the initial regeneration volume.
27
700.0
DefGross
Bruta
AnualDef
Annual
600.0
Reg
Bruta
AnualReg
Gross
Annual
Linear
(Def
Bruta
Anual)
Lineal
(Gross
Annual
Def)
500.0
Lineal
(Gross
Annual
Reg)
Linear
(Reg
Bruta
Anual)
400.0
300.0
200.0
100.0
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
0.0
Figure 4.1.2. Variation and simple trends of deforestation and gross regeneration for the 1987-2013 period.
The year assigned is the average of each period.
The main use of deforested areas during the whole period was pastures (Figure 4.1.3.). An approximate
seven out of ten deforested hectares became pastures. All the crops, for the domestic market (i.e. rice,
beans, Oil palm) and for export (i.e. pineapple, banana, Oil palm), captured two out of 10 deforested
hectares. Abandoned areas or areas in recovery took place more frequently as well in pastures and crops,
with approximately two out of ten regenerated hectares, respectively (Figure 4.1.4.).
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1990
1995
1999
2005
2010
% def BRUTA tot a PASTOS
% def BRUTA tot a CULTIVOS
% def BRUTA tot a PLANT FOR
% def BRUTA tot a URB & INF
2012
Figure 4.1.3. Use of the deforested gross area in Costa Rica for the 1987-2013 period. The year assigned is
the average of each period.
28
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1990
1995
1999
2005
2010
2012
% reg BRUTA tot de PASTOS
% reg BRUTA tot de CULTIVOS
% reg BRUTA tot de PLANT FOR
% reg BRUTA tot de URB & INF
Figure 4.1.4. Use of regenerated gross area in Costa Rica for the 1987-2013 period. The year assigned is the
average of each period.
29
60%
40%
20%
0%
Costa Rica
Cordillera sur
Cordillera volcánica central
Valle central oeste
Valle central
Costa y estribaciones del caribe
sur
Costa Rica
Cordillera sur
Valle central oeste
Valle central
sur
Planicie y costa caribe del norte
Costa del pacífico sur
Costa y estribaciones del pacífico
central
central
Abangares
80%
Abangares
100%
norte
norte
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Figure 4.1.5. Use of deforested gross area in Costa Rica for the 1987-2001 (above) and 2001-2011 (below)
periods, by zone of homogeneous deforestation process.
30
Costa Rica
Cordillera sur
% reg BRUTA tot de PLANT FOR
Valle central oeste
Valle central
Costa y estribaciones del
caribe sur
% reg BRUTA tot de CULTIVOS
Planicie y costa caribe norte
pacífico central
Abangares
pacífico norte
Costa Rica
Cordillera sur
Valle central oeste
Valle central
sur
central
Abangares
norte
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
% reg BRUTA tot de URB & INF
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Figure 4.1.6. Use of regenerated gross area in Costa Rica for the 1987-2001 (above) and 2001-2011 (below)
periods by zone of homogeneous deforestation process.
31
In this context, Costa Rica shows evidence that: i) it has been able to maintain much of its primary forests,
ii) it has reduced deforestation in its forests, and iii) it has promoted the regeneration of its forests. These
are early results, prior to the Conference of the Parties in Bali and Cancun that allow showing the country
performance in implementing REDD+ measures and policies.
However, as analyzed below, the deforestation problem and degradation are not eradicated in Costa Rica.
Even though the forest cover is growing, there are places where deforestation and land use changes from
forests to other uses take place.
Costa Rica does not have sufficient and robust information for the analysis of drivers of forest degradation.
However, avoiding degradation is part of the National REDD+ Strategy and will be part of future action
plans, as defined, to cover REDD+ activities, while information is produced to set an analysis of the
phenomenon and reference levels for the possible claim of emission reductions from forest degradation.
In order to start the technical and political dialogue on degradation, REDD+ Secretariat, by means of
USAID’s Regional Program on Climate Change, facilitated a national workshop to define the concept of
degradation in the framework of climate change and to provide initial elements for its measurement and
report, which is useful for an eventual inclusion in the reference level to be submitted before the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Subsequent to the discussion of the participants in the workshop (PRCC, 2015), and after agreeing to the
work in groups to reach the goal of constructing a consensual definition, it was possible to state the
following definition for “forest degradation” that will be used within the context of Costa Rica’s National
REDD+ Strategy.
“Forest degradation, in the context of Costa Rica’s National REDD+ Strategy is a statistically significant
reduction in the magnitude of carbon existences in areas defined as mature forest, due to anthropogenic
actions (fires, illegal cut, wrong agricultural practices et al), that can be quantified and monitored through
remote sensors and field data” (PRCC, 2015).
It is important to clarify that the participants agreed that due to the carbon content per forest cover type
existing in the country, it is important to prepare a definition of forest degradation for secondary forests, in
which there is carbon recovery or gains as well as losses. Therefore, the preceding definition applies as so to
mature forests.
This information basis will be useful to report the action plan(s) including degradation and that will be
financed by the additional funds granted by the FCPF to prepare REDD+ in Costa Rica.
Not all the regions in the country show those patterns. For instance, between 1987 and 2001, only two of
every ten deforested hectares were transformed into grasslands in the central valley. Here, the most
important uses are settlements and infrastructure, with over four out of every 10 hectares. To the West and
East of the central valley, in the central volcanic range, the most important use of deforested areas was
crops. Between 2001 and 2011, the regional patterns remained stable. The only significant change was an
increase in the proportion of the deforested area dedicated to crops in the central valley (at the expense of
urban settlements and infrastructure).
32
Both deforestation and regeneration show a high geographical concentration. Between 2001 and 2011, one
of every three deforested hectares was located in the Northern plateau and coast. Another two took place
in the North Pacific coast and foothills, and a little over one out 10 occurred in the Southern mountain range
(Chart 4.1.1.). Deforestation and regeneration follow patterns more or less similar in each period: when
more deforestation takes place, there is a trend to observe more regeneration. During the 1987-2001
period, six out of 10 deforested hectares occurred in the North, in the coast and the Pacific foothills, and in
the plateau and the North Caribbean areas of Costa Rica.
33
North Pacific coast and foothills
Abangares
Central Pacific coast and foothills
South Pacific coast
North Caribbean plateau and coast
South Caribbean coast and foothills
Central Valley
Western central valley
Central volcanic range
Southern range
Costa Rica
Annual Gross DEF proportion per zone
33.9
2.3
3.5
5.6
28.1
5.8
2.9
3.3
8.3
6.3
100.0
Annual Gross REG proportion per zone
35.1
1.5
8.9
9.4
20.3
4.8
1.9
1.7
8.9
7.6
100.0
Annual Gross DEF proportion per zone
18.5
1.3
7.0
6.7
31.1
8.0
2.4
2.7
8.5
13.8
100.0
Annual Gross REG proportion per zone
29.0
1.1
6.8
10.7
19.9
4.1
3.0
3.4
16.7
5.4
100.0
1987-2001
2001-2011
Chart 4.1.1. Regional net deforestation and regeneration distribution (%) in Costa Rica for the 1987-2001 and 2001-2011 periods.
34
Forest cover change national and regional factors for the 1987-2013 period
The trend towards the reduction of the gross deforested area in Costa Rica between 1987 and 2013 is the
result of the conjunction of three enabling conditions:
1)
Starting at the beginning of the 1980’s, the intense migration of rural population to urban centers
and in particular to the central valley, reduced the capacity of geographical expansion of an
agricultural sector that until then had depended on the availability of rural labor. The most
important crops, banana, Oil palm and grasslands for cattle, are highly dependent on a flexible
labor force.
2)
The population transfer from the rural sector to urban sectors was reinforced by state policies,
amongst them education, health, energy, the creation of free trade zones that had a determinant
effect on available rural work options outside the agricultural sector, including tourism at their
places of origin and destination when they migrated. And,
3)
The agricultural sector adapted at a rapid speed to the effects of these transformations, replacing
labor with machinery and other factors of productive intensification. The development of new
export markets for non-traditional products such as pineapple and oil palm facilitated the
evolution of the agricultural sector towards more intensive and capitalized production sectors. A
possible important result of this process is the increase in the opportunity cost of land (one
pineapple hectare produces $6-8000/year), probably displacing production systems of a lower
performance and extensive (such as cattle farming). .
At the regional level, the productive systems adapted in a different way. The direct production system
associated to cattle farming, most of all meat that supplies a quickly growing urban population and with a
growing consumption capacity, may have pressed for the expansion of grassland areas in zones with a low
land cost, including areas with limited access (cattle walk to the market) in general, and in the North
Caribbean plateau and coast in particular. The scarcity of local labor in zones where cattle farming is
possible was solved by the presence of significant migrant population, mostly coming from Nicaragua. In
the central region of the country, the loss of forest areas is associated to its transformation in dense and
disperse urban settlements.
The increase in the regeneration of native forests observed can be connected, at least preliminarily, to
specific periods during which the demand of new productive areas strongly declined. Specifically, the
regeneration upturn observed between 1997 and 2001, could have been started by a generalized
abandonment of agricultural lands associated to the coffee, banana and fiscal crisis (due to the increase of
oil prices) at the beginning of the 1980’s. The forests in these lands were regenerated towards the second
half of the decade of the 1990’s sufficient enough as to be detected by the satellite images. The second
upturn that began more or less a decade ago is probably associated to the 1996 Forestry Law and its impact
on forests in a regeneration process. From then on, and in contrast with preceding periods, a significant
fraction of regenerated area is, by law, maintained and accumulated, which could explain the acceleration
of the regenerated area growth during the last years
Based on the foregoing, it is possible to affirm that the policies and actions proposed as part of the
Emissions Reduction Program are considering the attention to deforestation drivers, by applying existing or
new mechanisms, to look after the deforestation factors related to land tenure. Thus, in public domain
35
lands, the actions are oriented to improving institutional management capacity and to consolidate the
purchase of lands to integrate them to their conservation roles, strengthening the investments for the
purchase of land and their consolidation as State Natural Heritage. The expansion of Payment for
Environmental Services program is also included, as well as the improvement of fire control and illegal cuts
and the updating of Protected Wildlife Areas management plans.
In indigenous territories, corresponding to an approximate 10% of the country’s forest cover, besides
strengthening the control actions of illegal logging, there is a plan to improve the clarification of land
tenure rights and to expand the scope of the Payment for Environmental Services program. In private
property, where the highest levels of intensity and deforestation are observed, mainly because of the
dedication of terrains to agricultural activities, in addition to strengthening illegal cut control, the
valorization of the terrains and the production of additional revenue for producers by broadening the
coverage of Payment for Environmental Services program will be promoted.
Influence of Protected Wildlife Areas System
Costa Rica’s Protected Wildlife Areas System produce a clear effect on the probability of forest cover
change on any of the analyzed non-forest classes (Chart 4.1.2.). An approximate 40% more deforestation
than expected takes place outside of these areas due to the distribution of native forests. On the other
hand, the recovery probability of forest area within protected areas is proportionally higher.
Chart 4.1.2. Cover change probabilities from and to forest inside and outside of protected areas in Costa
Rica, 1987-2013.
Period
19872001
20012013
Location
Total
Total
Total
Total forest
DEF
REG
deforestation
agriculture regeneration
%
relation
relation
%
%
%
Outside protected areas
62.9
88.7
1.41
93.2
88.6
0.95
Within protected areas
37.1
11.3
0.30
6.8
11.4
1.67
Costa Rica
100.0
100.0
1.00
100.0
100.0
1.00
Outside protected areas
61.8
91.4
1.48
92.9
87.9
0.95
Within protected areas
38.2
8.6
0.22
7.1
12.1
1.71
Costa Rica
100.0
100.0
1.00
100.0
100.0
1.00
Deforestation and regeneration analysis per tenure regime
The analysis of the temporary land use change is consistent with the preliminary findings shown in the
REDD+ Preparation Plan or R-PP. A deforestation gradient was identified in mature forests inversely
related to the management category’s restriction level (Figure 4.1.7.) and directly proportional to the
average opportunity of land cost in the management category 15 (Figure 4.1.8.). The deforestation in
national parks and biological reserves (probably deforestation with a natural origin), protected wildlife
areas, indigenous reserves and private property forests is ordered, from lower to higher (Figure 4.1.7.). It is
15
The opportunity cost was estimated for each management category using maps algebraic analysis based on the
shape developed by Vega-Araya (2014).
36
possible that national parks and protected wildlife areas are less deforested because the rent of their lands
is lower than that of private forests16.
1.60%
Deforestación Bruta
1.40%
1.20%
1.00%
0.80%
0.60%
0.40%
0.20%
0.00%
Parques nacionales y
reservas biologicas
Reservas Indigenas
Periodo 2008-2013
Areas Silvestres
Tierras Privadas
Periodo 1987-2013
Figure 4.1.7. Gross deforestation variation of mature forest in different types of tenure/management
categories: Public (Protected Wildlife Areas, National Parks and Biological Reserves), Communal
(Indigenous territories) and Private (Private Lands), for the 1987-2013 and 2008-2013 periods.
1.60%
Deforestación Bruta
1.40%
1.20%
y = 0.0051ln(x) - 0.0491
R² = 0.9245
1.00%
0.80%
0.60%
0.40%
y = 2E-08x + 0.0004
R² = 0.9741
0.20%
0.00%
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
Costo de Oportunidad de la tierra (Colones 2013)
Bosque Maduro Periodo 2008-2013
Bosque Maduro Periodo 1987-2013
Figure 4.1.8. Gross deforestation variation of mature forest based on the opportunity cost of land in
Colones of 2013.
16 Walker,
R. 2004. Theorizing Land-Cover and Land-Use Change: The Case of Tropical Deforestation. International
Regional Science Review, 27(3), 247–270. doi:10.1177/0160017604266026.
37
Moreover, a deforestation gradient linked to forest age was also identified (Figure 4.1.9.). The higher
deforestation rate is found in Early Regeneration forests (lower than 10 years), followed by MidRegeneration forests (between 10 and 20 years), and finally, Late Regeneration forests (over 20 years). The
foregoing suggests, amongst other things, that: a) The low deforestation observed in late regeneration and
old growth forests, in the different management categories, evinces a preference for its conservation over
regenerated forests; b) the agents are subject to legal and economic stimulus that promotes the removal of
regenerated cover, in particular early forest cover. It must be noted that the variation of gross deforestation
of the different secondary succession cohorts show the same gradient for the different management
categories in Costa Rica, as well as an order amongst management categories, similar to the one observed
for gross deforestation in mature forests (Fig. 1.A); with the exception of Indigenous Reserves where a
deforestation level similar to the one of public lands was evinced.
8.00%
y = -0.0033x + 0.0969
R² = 0.903
Deforestaciòn Bruta (periodo 2008-2013)
7.00%
6.00%
y = -0.0022x + 0.0766
R² = 0.9357
5.00%
4.00%
y = -0.002x + 0.0571
R² = 0.8812
3.00%
y = -0.0015x + 0.0412
R² = 0.9375
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
0
5
-1.00%
10
15
20
25
30
Edad media del cohorte (años)
Parques nacionales y reservas biologicas
Territorios indígenas
Areas Silvestres Protegidas
Tierras Privadas
Figure 4.1.9. Gross deforestation variation of the different cohorts (age classes) for the different
management categories.
Wildlife Areas Protected by the State
Costa Rica has protected its resources with an ambitious National Parks and Biological Reserves System
created in the decade of the 1970’s. With over 11% of the country, these are public domain lands and are
under the full protection category. However, part of the lands expropriated for this System have not yet
been paid to their owners; the System is inappropriately financed, with little security and under the
constant threat of squatters, illegal lumber dealers, hunters and miners. The size of the System is not
sufficiently big as to guarantee the conservation of some species, including the most valued by the Costa
Rican society. Consequently, the biodiversity conservation role of the System depends on the conservation
of buffer areas or in the creation of biological corridors that are mainly located in private lands. In contrast,
38
this national parks system has been the basis for the promotion of ecotourism and has promoted the
activity to the point of turning it into one of the most important income generator in the country 17.
Protected Wildlife Areas in Costa Rica are classified by their management category. The most restrictive
categories are exclusively destined to full conservation and are comprised by the National Parks and
Biological Reserves. In general, it is the regime with the lowest deforestation problem. There’s still gross
deforestation in Protected Wildlife Areas, including National Parks and Biological Reserves (MINAE, 2011),
mainly because of the fact that some of those lands have not been consolidated, meaning that the
purchase and/or expropriation process and the corresponding payment have not taken place yet.
The reasons differ in the cases of already consolidated areas (lands duly registered as State property and
with appropriate institutional presence and resources) from those not yet consolidated. Regarding the first
ones, the deforestation problem is lower; however, the lack of resources to exercise dominion and control
by the State is recognized as part of the threats posed by squatters, illegal lumber dealers, hunters and
miners.
In relation with the latter, the pressure comes from the higher profitability of alternate
uses. Private lands in national parks and biological reserves do not have this type of problem because the
forest cover is relatively competitive. Notwithstanding this, there are problems on access restrictions to the
PSA for forest holders with formalization problems of their property rights to avoid alternate uses of the
forest.
With regards to the other protection categories, 14% of the country is regulated under those, especially
forest reserves and wildlife refuges. Most of these protected areas are located in private or mixed dominion
lands, meaning that they are not fully under State dominion, but that belong to private farmers in different
proportions. Land titling is a problem in these areas, due to the length and cost of the process. In forest
reserves, the legislation requires that the holder proofs his possession of at least ten years prior to the
creation of the reserve, which is a situation that cannot be evinced in many cases.
Protected wildlife areas under private dominion
In addition to the National Parks and Biological reserves, 14% of the country is regulated under different
protection categories, especially forest reserves and wildlife refuges. Most of the protected areas are
located in private or mixed dominion lands. Land titling is a problem in these areas, due to the length and
cost of the process. Notwithstanding this, significant use and resource access restrictions are applied to
them, which also propitiate cover recuperation natural processes.
Indigenous territories
10% of the country’s forest cover is under communal tenure dominion. In indigenous reserves, the
opportunity cost of land is not as low as in national parks and protected wildlife areas, the deforestation
rate in all the cohorts is intermediate, and the conflict on land use is low. The reality of this stratum is
similar to the Protected Wildlife Areas, although forest tenure is clearer in indigenous territories even
though an important proportion is in the hands of non-indigenous people.
17 Brockett
y Gottfried, 2002. State policies and the conservation of forest cover: lessons from contrasting public-policy
arrangements in Costa Rica. Latin America Research Review 3(1):7-40
39
Private lands
Private property forests underwent an intervention process during the seventies and eighties, and a reform
process of the forestry sector during the nineties that originated the current Forestry Law. This new law set
the participation mechanisms for third parties interested in the creation of forestry policies and in the
creation and distribution of incentives for the conservation and improvement of forest cover. The law
prohibits changes in forest land use, even in cases where the conversion takes place to set a forest
plantation. In order to promote sustainable sustainable management of forest, the requirements for
management plans were simplified, including the figure of the general plan and operational plans, and the
seasonal restriction to the execution of the use plan was eliminated. This legislation created the National
Forestry Office, conformed by representatives of forest producers, wood industry, trade sector and
environmental organizations, as the counterparts in the dialogue for the definition of public policies on this
subject by the Government. Additionally, the law freed the cutting, transportation, industrialization and
export of wood coming from Tree plantations. Finally, it created the system for the Payment for
Environmental Services to forest owners and the National Forestry Financing Fund to financially support
forestry activities of small and medium producers and to manage the Payment for Environmental Services
program.
The deforestation cause in this tenure regime is attributed by some authors to the conversion of forests into
agricultural and cattle farming use. In many cases, land users obtain a higher income with agriculture or
cattle farming than with forests, conditioned by factors such as road access, policies, legal rules, even
market situations that favor these activities. Specifically, recent actions such as the pineapple expansion
due to fiscal incentive and the high prices of the product in international markets, the project of an
international airport in the southern part of the country, the national bio-fuels’ program, the development
of new markets such as China and Japan for agricultural products, etc., could, in the short term, stimulate
deforestation processes because the balance between profitability and conservation is altered vis a vis
other activities competing for the use of land (Joyce,2006 and Joyce, 2013).
Other authors (FUNDECOR, 2005) on the other hand, propose access to wood resources as another cause.
The lack of control combined with the existing use regulations (inefficient red tape) of wood are considered
other causes. Specifically, the agents face barriers or legal and economic stimuli that promote the removal
of regenerated cover, in particular early cover (for instance the prohibition of land use change set forth in
Forestry Law 7575 promotes the lack of interest for regenerated lands to become forests). The forest is first
illegally cleared and once cleared, a permit is requested to use the remaining wood as forestry inventory
(this has increased the proportion of agro-forestry systems permits/managed forest permits) since the law
reduced the restrictions to use non-forest areas. Concluded the process, the owner decides whether to keep
it as grassland for cattle (which was not his original motivation) or if he allows the regeneration. The
difference of use requirements between SAF and Managed Forest, SINAC’s deficient control of permits and
the slope in the participation of communal control groups such as COVIRENAS) promote this
phenomenon.
By discovering the behavior of deforestation per regeneration cohort that indicates that there is more
deforestation in forests’ early stages than in mature forests, the prohibition of change use in force in the
Costa Rican legislation is set as the cause itself, since the owners prevent the new cover to become a forest.
It is argued that the legislation and institutional mechanisms (Forestry Law 7575 in its article on the
prohibition of use change, and the deficiency in controls) promote the occurrence of more deforestation in
early regeneration stages to prevent its conversion into a “forest”.
40
Finally, small forest producers and peasants (Zúñiga, 2014) claim an over-regulation and administrative
closure, on sustainable primary and secondary natural sustainable management of forest; access restriction
to PES or the standing tree value recognition to natural forest owners and holders; lack of competitiveness
of the forest use in front of alternate uses; State weakness in the implementation of control mechanisms, as
elements that promote deforestation and degradation. The difficulty to enter the incentive or recognition
scheme to obtain financing and the fact that the State does not promote the activity are adduced as
barriers to maintain carbon forest reserves. In the case of forest reserves increases, the difficulty for
financing and the fact that the State does not promote the activity in addition to the uncertainty caused by
the Forestry Law with the article prohibiting use changes are adduced. Regarding the sustainable
management of forests, the causes adduced are the difficult and excessive procedures to access sustainable
management of forest according to current instruments.
Lands owned by State institutions not managed by SINAC
There is no clear information of the deforestation behavior in these lands. There is no knowledge of the
magnitude of hectares in said condition, or of their cover behavior, exploitation and tenure situations. The
country already has a legal body for its order and control, however, the irregular cadastral situation, and the
lack of registration and recording into the State Natural Heritage, prevents the actual knowledge of the
situation.
According to the forestry legislation in force (Law 7575), the State Natural Heritage is constituted by the
forests and forestry terrains of national reserves, areas declared inalienable, the properties registered under
its name and those belonging to municipalities, autonomous institutions and other organisms of the Public
Administration,… (art. 13).
Areas with the highest deforestation risk
The highest deforestation risk between 1987 and 2001 was located in Belen, where 5 times more
deforestation occurred than expected given the proportion of forest cover of the canton. Between 2001 and
2011 the canton with the highest risk was San Pablo, where 10 times more forests were deforested than
expected given the natural forest cover level. In general, the cantons with the highest deforestation risk are
small and have little forest cover. Some big cantons also show high deforestation intensity. During the
2001-2011 period, Buenos Aires and San Carlos were example of that, experiencing over twice the
deforestation expected for cantons with their forest cover. Between 2011 and 2013, the cantons of San
Pablo, Palmares and Poás had 10 times more deforestation than expected for their forest cover at the
beginning of the period. Because of the gross regeneration intensity, cantons such as Alajuelita, Dota and
Escazú stood out between 2001-2013, with less than twice the regeneration expected given their size and
agricultural cover. Between 2011 and 2013, cantons like Tibás, Alajuelita, Aserrí and Dota experienced at
least three times less regeneration than expected given the agricultural area measured at the beginning of
the period. .
Finally, the following features were highlighted regarding deforestation, conservation and regeneration:
Generalities: along the complete lapse built (1986-2013) there is a very low fall in primary forest cover,
a fall in the gross deforestation rate and an upturn in reforestation and regeneration;
consequently, there was a net upturn of forest cover during the comprehensive period.
41
Deforestation and regeneration direct factors: Regarding gross deforestation, close to 70% of the
deforested area becomes pastures, a little over 20% crops and almost 10% plantations. However, it
must also be mentioned that out of the full regeneration, before over 65% were pastures, 20%
crops and close to 20% plantation.
Tenure regime as a first factor: For the whole series, close to 1.4% of private lands are deforested, close
to 0.9% of the ASP (excluding PN and RB) are deforested, close to 0.3% of indigenous territories
are deforested and 0.1% of NP and BR are deforested. The biggest problem lies then in private
lands. For regeneration, it was also showed that there is more regeneration within ASP (all of the
protection categories) than outside ASP.
Forest age: From the R-PP studies (MINAE, 2011), it is known that there is higher deforestation in new
forests (secondary) than in mature forests. With the new series generated a deforestation rate of
15 years or less of close to 4.5% is known, while in forests 15-25 years old it reaches 2%, and less
than 1% for forests of over 25 years of age.
Deforestation concentration: Deforestation is not the same for all the national territory. The ZPHD
with the highest deforestation are: North Pacific coast and foothills (with 34% of the country total
deforestation for the 1987-2001 period, and 19% for the 2001-2013 period); North Caribbean
plateau and coast (with 28% and 31% deforestation with regards to the whole country for periods
1987-2001 and 2001-2013 respectively); and the South Range (with 6% and 14%). In the case of
regeneration these are the most representative regions too. For the same periods, they represent:
North Pacific coast and foothills 35% and 29%; North Caribbean plateau and coast 20% and 20%
and South Range 8% and 5.
Indirect factors for each deforestation homogeneous zone:Table 4.1.3. is shown in the summary of
factors found in CDI (2015) for each deforestation homogeneous zone once reviewed in field with
the performance of 5 validation workshops.
Chart 4.1.3. Importance degree of deforestation indirect factors.
Situational indirect factors
Score18
Key cultivation price cycles in the zone
39
Tourism (employment diversification, land value)
15
Urban markets growth and increase of urban demand for derived products
14
Proximity and Access to the central valley (control, land price)
13
Changes in employment structure (to urban and tourism)
12
Productive transformation towards agribusiness systems (productive intensification)
12
18
For the determination of the scores of situational factors in order of importance, a score of 6 was assigned to the
Deforestation Homogeneous Zone (ZPHD) mentioned for the first factor, 5 points for the factor mentioned second, 4
for the one mentioned third, 3 for the one mentioned fourth, 2 for the one mentioned fifth, 1 for the one mentioned
sixth and 0 if the factor was not mentioned. The score represents the addition of scores for each factor in each ZHPD.
42
Demand increase of cattle products
10
Rural-urban migration
9
Foreign labor force, rural labor force availability
7
Appropriate ecological context for cattle
6
Fall of livestock density capacity
5
Fall of livestock density capacity in regions neighboring traditional livestock areas
5
Indigenous productive systems
5
Foreign labor force availability in services sector
4
Land cost increase in neighboring regions
4
Forest moratorium
3
Land cost increase (in other economic activities)
2
The most dominant factors are related to the competitiveness of activities alternate to forest conservation,
and have been highlighted in pink and orange, those specific for livestock farming. Those related to labor
force, migrations, social support, etc., appear in light blue.
These factors show that deforestation is a mainly economic phenomenon, in which the decisions of
changing the land use from forest to other uses are driven by the desire 1) of exploiting woods, or 2) to
make an alternate land use. The decisions of conserving forests are made because 3) given the conditions, a
higher profitability is NOT obtained from the current one conserving it (that includes values for ecotourism
use, or for research, of future options, personal values, etc.), or 4) the impossibility of doing so, for instance,
because of a legal mandate.
There are many elements behind these factors and the different authors who have treated the topic have
centered in one or several elements that affect one or several of the 4 factors mentioned above. This way,
any agricultural promotion policy motivating alternate uses of forests (factor 2) will favor deforestation, so
if congruence is sought, it is necessary to review the policy so its effect is not posed on forest lands. In Costa
Rica, the agricultural policy points towards the improvement of the sector based on actions to improve
technology and market access, and to improve productivity per unit of space used, and that do not promote
gaining new areas for cultivation and production.
On the other hand, programs such as PES, in turn, act by increasing the forest’s relative profitability (factor
3). These must deal with other market situations, such as the behavior of wood local price (factor 1), or the
long term price of any product competing for land use (such as the case of melon some years ago or
pineapple these days), that increase the general profitability of all the competitive uses of forests (factor 2).
These variations in price may be caused by international situations or even by the improvement of
accessibility through infrastructure development.
Different authors have also argued that the legislation or institutions, for instance the Forestry Law
prohibiting the land use change from forest to other uses (factor 4). Other factors such as spiritual values
43
towards the forest, household income, labor availability in the zone, educational level, etc., are considered
marginal.
4.2. Assessment of the major barriers to REDD+
Main barriers to attend deforestation barriers
From the R-PP and ER-PIN analysis, the main barrier to attend deforestation drivers is the opportunity cost
of land in private forests, and at the same time, the lack of an efficient and successful forestry sector in the
production, industrialization and marketing of wood and other products originating in sustainable
management of forest. This implies that the profitability of forestry management is lower to the
profitability of agricultural production. In this case, it is assumed that the forestry management, not as
REDD+ activity but as an emission reduction measure by deforestation and forest conservation, since it is
the only productive alternative explicitly made by the current Forestry Law to forest owners.
Currently, another element is the existence of rights on non-registered lands and consequently over the
forest resources, which produces a disadvantage for land holders because this condition prevents them
from participating in the Payment for Environmental Services program, since they do not comply with the
requirements previously set, or because they are located in areas excluded by the program. For these
owners, the lack of requirements is a barrier for forest conservation. The problem of land tenure in different
areas under the administration of different State institutions is also a condition that acts a barrier, since
those holders have no legal security to remain and develop their lives in such lands.
It is also important to recognize that the private owned areas within Protected Wildlife Areas that have not
been expropriated or paid produce a feeling of dissatisfaction in the owners and a general mistrust on the
State compliance. Although not formally confirmed, it is possible that the owners incur in criminal actions
in adjacent areas as well as in the boundaries of Protected Wildlife Areas. In this case, the barrier is the nonexpropriation and the payment of the lands owed by the State and considered part of the State Natural
Heritage.
In the case of accidental fires in the forest, the forest fire does not change the land use, unless deliberately
used as part of the tools for such purpose. In Costa Rica, from 1998-2014, an average 3,300 ha/year of
Forest, 9,700 ha/year of Secondary Forest and 16,400 ha/year of grasslands caught fire19, being theses
covers an approximate 90% of the total burnt area. The National Committee on Forest Fires has an ordinary
State budget; however, it does not include all fires reported in zones outside of protected wildlife areas
(ASP), since its priority is to prevent fires to penetrate the ASP in the first instance, and only then to provide
support to private owners outside the ASP. This is a significant barrier and is reflected in the 100% of the
burnt area for the 1998-2014 period, the 87% is outside the ASP and only the 13% within the ASP. The
records on fire causes are kept since 2007 and of the fires between 2007 and 2014, 24% of the fires were
caused by grassland burnings, 21% vandalism, 19% agricultural burnings, and 11% hunting activities. Most
of the forest fires are caused for accidents outside the forests.
19 Data
provided by the National Committee on Forest Fires, 1998-2014 period. There are no records on the type of
cover changed both in the forest burnt area or in the secondary forest, but the expert criteria is that the percentage is
very low. The affectation of forest fires in Costa Rica is for degradation.
44
Regarding illegal logging, it is estimated that in Costa Rica it is equal to 36%, understood as the percentage
of the wood coming from illegal logging 20, some 200.000 m3 per year. In the consultation to experts made
in the aforementioned study, the main causes of illegal logging were identified as procedures with 17%,
poor control management 17%, demand of forest products 14% and human needs 11%. Additionally, 50%
blamed the State for illegal logging, more than the responsibility attributed to the private sector (22% to
consumers and market and 22% to owners). As of this moment, the main barriers for the prevention of
illegal logging have been the inefficacy of the existing mechanism and of the monitoring systems to detect
forest loss. The functioning of the current control model obeys to the need of covering control and
protection actions of immediate response, in a way that their response level in this role is usually reactive
before society claims and is not enough to become preventive. There is not an integrated model either,
because due to SINAC’s organizational structure each conservation area makes an effort to respond to
claims and they are all organized independently. This situation hinders management and follow-up of the
control policy at the national level, besides the planning and budgeting and the control per strategic results.
Currently, SINAC is reviewing the control institutional model on Illegal Logging, in order to improve key
features for its functioning, such as scope, structure (organization and components), processes,
methodologies, instruments, resources, etc.
In indigenous territories, the main barrier is the poor flexibility of current financial mechanisms to allow the
cultural exploitation of forests in indigenous territories. For instance, the Payment for Environmental
Services does not permit hunting or the extraction of non-wooden products from areas registered under
the modality of conservation, including indigenous territories. This is against the worldview and
management ancestral practices. This could cause that they become forest areas outside the Payment for
Environmental Services areas to compensate for the need of forest products. Additionally, the presence of
non-indigenous population in possession of indigenous territories has been pointed out as an eventual
driver of deforestation, given the precarious situation of land tenure rights in those areas, which implies the
need to continue moving towards the clarification of rights, in particular in indigenous territories and other
areas under special management schemes.
Main barriers for REDD+ and forest conservation
REDD+ in Costa Rica is implemented through forestry and environmental policies that created the National
System of Conservation Areas, its illegal logging control programs and forest fires management as well as
the Payment for Environmental Services. The private sector has contributed to the reduction of emissions
from deforestation through the conservation of forests.
At the governance level, REDD+ faces significant challenges. Its complexity and inter-disciplinary and intersectoral scope21 require of capacities which are new in the country. Attaching the existing governance
structures might be limited by the legal competence of ministries and institutions. This applies to the
implementation framework as well, since REDD+ must be coherent with the other mitigation actions,
20
The estimate of Illegal Forest Logging mentioned in this document comes from the Consultancy Report
“Strengthening of the Strategy for prevention and control of illegal logging” developed in the framework of the
Preparation for REDD+ along with SINAC, through the offer-demand method. There, consultant Muñoz mentions an
estimate made by CATIE (35%) for yr 2001 and the currently performed (37%) for 2011, which are close to the ones
perceived by several players consulted by the end of 2014 by the consultant, 36%, understood as the percentage of
wood volume coming from illegal logging.
21Seeking the attention of the deforestation drivers.
45
consistent with the GHG inventory and must provide environmentally sound emission reductions within a
Carbon-Neutrality framework. Achieving consistency in the accounting scheme has been an important
challenge to the country. It has also been a challenge for the country to properly adapt to the emerging
methodological frameworks. Regarding the transfer of title to emission reductions, being a requirement of
the Carbon Fund, there are land tenure problems in the country, particularly in Protected Wildlife Areas,
border areas and indigenous territories in which a transfer may not be legally possible. In terms of
financing, the country cannot commit to a highest ambition in emission reduction, without knowing and
being sure of the availability of international financing resources.
Consistency with the barriers’ analysis of ER-PIN and R-Package
The ER-PIN poses barriers to the implementation of REDD+ through the Payment for Environmental
Services program. The scope of this Emissions Reduction Program is nation-wide for the reduction of
emissions caused by deforestation, and therefore the magnitude is higher and the scope broader than the
barriers considered; however, some of the barriers explained in the ER-PIN are applicable. With regards to
deforestation, the barriers explained in the ER-PIN match.
Consistency between the proposed policies and the strategic options of R-PP
The policies, actions and activities included in the Emissions Reduction Program were designed building on
the risks identified during the consultation process. These risks derive from the analysis of the strategic
options originally incorporated into the R-PP. In the R-PP, the strategic options did not entail sufficient
details as to construct a program with specific actions and tasks as contemplated in the policies hereby
considered. It is because this common base that the consistency between the strategic options and the
Program policies and actions can be assured. For instance, concrete actions to strengthen the National
System of Conservation Areas were identified (Strategic option 1), in particular with reference to its
capacities to guaranty its integrity, by strengthening fire control and illegal logging strategies. Moreover,
actions to integrate national parks and biological reserves were also incorporated (Strategic option 2) in
addition to the Protected Wildlife Areas and other State Natural Heritage lands to carbon capture.
Likewise, actions to support the regularization measure of rights on areas under special arrangements
(Strategic option 3) including indigenous territories were included, so that the land offer for the Payment
for Environmental Services can be expanded. The Program also includes actions to maintain the coverage
of Payment for Environmental Services in the long term and to broaden its scope (Strategic options 4 and
5). Finally, actions to promote the sustainable production and consumption of Wood are included (Strategic
option 6), the strengthening of the control actions by the Agronomists Association (Strategic option 7), and
the development of a financing strategy (Strategic option 8) for National REDD+ Strategy as identified in
Section 4.3.
4.3. Description and justification of the planned actions and interventions under the ER
Program that will lead to emission reductions and/or absorptions
Costa Rica’s forestry policy is formally defined in national forestry development plans. The first Plan was
created for 2001-2010 and included a strong participation process with stakeholders. The second Plan
currently covers 2011-2020, and this provides continuity to forestry state policies. The Government defined
priority areas for implementing the Forest and Rural Development Program, in order to support the
implementation of the forest policies defined in the 2nd Plan. However, public financial resources have
been insufficient to cover the costs of the 2nd Plan, even though the country has requested loans from the
World Bank to fill some of the existing finance gaps.
46
The 2nd plan adopted measures (by decree) to 1) Expand and consolidate a Protected Areas System, 2)
Improve operational capacities to reduce illegal logging and to enforce the prohibition on forest coversion,
3) Strengthen actions to reducing the impact of forest fires, 4) Improve capacities to formally incorporate
public forest lands to the State Natural Heritage, and 6) Purchase lands to continue improving the
Protected Area System, as well as forest reserves for hydroelectricity.
The ER-P considers the first two National Forestry Development Plans, especially the 2nd Plan, and builds
on its forest policy framework by providing six new policies to reduce emissions, increase removals and
build capacity to grant sustainability and environmental integrity to these emission reductions.
Context of the proposed measures
According to the phased approached described in Figure 2.2.1., , the ER-P will focus on three REDD+
activities, for which sufficient quality data exist to determine a reference level and to establish emission
reduction goals.. Additional information on the remaining REDD+ activities will be collected for allowing
their incorporation in 2016. Nonetheless, policy actions are included in the ER-P for all REDD+ activities, as
these are part of the benefit sharing mechanism (Section 15). Additional policy actions may be included in
the future, as more data is collected on the activities not included in the reference level.
Presently, each REDD+ activity is implemented by policies, actions and activities additional, which may or
not be additional to what is mandated by law (Section 4.5.). Some additional efforts are meant to fill gaps
in implementation, for example, in cases where Costa Rica does not have sufficient human, technical and
financial resources22.
Methodology for defining the proposed measures
Costa Rica’s strongest proposal to the FCPF Carbon Fund is a set of policy actions that were derived from
multi-stakeholder participatory processes. The six policies presented here are a product of ample discussion
with government institutions, indigenous peoples, the small- and medium landowner forestry sector, as
well as large -scale, industrial forestry sector. These measures are in the form of policies, actions and
specific tasks or activities derived from a the SESA and during the information and pre-consultation phases
of National REDD+ Strategy.
The participatory processes were designed to identifty risks and opportunities related to the proposed
Strategic Options23 included in Costa Rica’s R-PP. Over 100 recurring risks and opportunities were identified
and grouped in 27 groups, to address reflect ideas. This sistematization was done by the REDD+ Secretariat
and is publicly available here. Subsequently, five strategic axes and six forestry policies were identified for
addressing these risks and to foster opportunities. In addition to this, the REDD+ Secretariat included other
22For
instance, Article 2 of the Forestry Law defines the authority of the State to execute expropriations of private
forest lands in Protected Conservation Areas. However, many expropriations have not been appropriately
compensated, an actually have been identified as a driver of deforestation (Section 4.1.). Often, proper compensation
has not been carried out because the State is unable to assign public financial resources for payment. Currently, the
State Forest Administration annually assigns funds for payment of these lands, but it is not sufficient to pay for all the
pending expropriations.
23 It must be noted that the REDD+ Secretariat performed a consistency analysis of the original strategic options with
the six policies, actions and tasks eventually defined, and found full compatibility.
47
specific actions, within the framework of the six policies, according to specific political interests by the
Minister of MINAE. This set of policies will be subject to formal national consultation. All policies are part of
the ER-P to the FCPF Carbon Fund.
Furthermore, opportunities to enhance the current set of REDD+ policies have already been identified. For
example, Costa Rica is currently finalizing a proposal to the World Bank for developing a “Green and
Inclusive Development Plan in Productive Rural Lands”. The purpose of this Plan is to capitalize value chains
and the provision of ecosystem services in forests and agricultural lands. This is intended to go beyond
current restrictive measures and seeks to rehabilitate productive lands. Particularly for the forestry sector,
overly restrictive forest management policies are in place, and these have caused a significant reduction of
investment in forestry businesses, as well as the development of value chains for forest products.
In summary, the objetctive of this initiative is to promote green and inclusive development, favoring the
application of sustainable productive systems in rural territories with lower development and potentially
vulnerable to climate change. Mainly ,the Plan seeks to:

Rehabilitate rural lands, and reduce degradation processes to generate ecosystem services and
improve wealth of small- and medium- scale producers,

Increase productivity and competitiveness of agricultural production and strenghen value chains to
increase monetary value of the territories, based on their environmental goods and services,

Foster enhanced resilience of rural lands by increasing mitigation and adatpation.
There is some redundancy with the ER_P, which will be solved as the proposal to the World Bank is further
advanced.
48
Proposed measures included in the ER-P
Table 4.3.1.Policies, actions and activities included in the ER-P and the National REDD+ Strategy. (It is important to remember that the ER-P is the
operational framework proposed by Costa Rica to implement the National REDD+ Strategy).
Policies
Actions
ACTION 1.1: Strengthen the operation and financing of SINAC’s Forest Fires Management Strategy
inside and outside Protected Conservation Areas
ACTION 1.2: Strengthen the operation and financing of SINAC’s Illegal Logging Control Strategy
POLICY 1. Guarantee the integrity of the
State Natural Heritage and private forests, as
well as the Measurement, Report And
Verification capacities, according to REDD+’s
requirements
ACTION 1.3: Strengthen Costa Rica’s system for monitoring land use/cover dynamics
ACTION 1.4: Develop a strategy to integrate public lands to the State Natural Heritage
ACTION 1.5: Contribute to the consolidation of SINAC’s Protected Areas System
ACTION 1.6: Device synergies between conservation and resilience of the State’s Natural Heritage
ACTION 1.7: Execute action plans to address direct and underlying causes of deforestation and forest
degradation
ACTION 2.1: Prepare a Forestry Development Plan with Indigenous Territories
POLICY 2: Promote the comprehensive and
harmonious participation of stakeholders in
REDD+, including lands under special landtenure regimes
ACTION 2.2: Implement mechanisms for solving conflicts in regards to REDD+
ACTION 2.3: Develop mechanisms to promote the participation of agroforestry producers and
farmers in REDD+
49
Policies
POLICY 3: Improve capacities in the public and
private sectors to manage and promote
silvicultural practices in forests and tree
plantations, in order to increase
competitiveness
Actions
ACTION 3.1: Contribute to the implementation of forest policies in the National Forestry
Development Plan related to improving management capacities in support of REDD+
implementation
ACTION 3.2: Strengthen policies to promote and recognize sustainable agricultural and agroforestry
practices
ACTION 4.1: Address land-tenure and emission reductions rights in indigenous territories
POLICY 4: Promote legal security by
supporting clarification and regularization
procedures of land tenure and emission
reduction rights, with an emphasis on
indigenous territories,, public lands and areas
under special land-tenure regimes
ACTION 4.2: Address land-tenure and emission reductions rights in areas under special land-tenure
regimes
ACTION 4.3: Address land-tenure and emission reductions rights in public lands
ACTION 4.4: Promote consistency in the delimitarions rules for areas under special land-tenure
regimes
ACTION 5.1: Plan land use as a function of the potential contribution of areas to REDD+ objectives
POLICY 5: Increase opportunities for all
stakeholders to receive benefits from REDD+
activities, as well as those addressing
deforestation and forest degradation
ACTION 5.2: Improve competitiveness of forestry and agroforestry financing mechanisms, also in
relation to other land uses
ACTION 5.3: Broaden financing sources and consolidate a benefit sharing mechanism, which is
consistent with the goals of the National REDD+ Strategy.
ACTION 5.4: Promote tree planting in urban public zones
50
Policies
Actions
ACTION 6.1: Design, test and implement a Safeguards Information System (SIS)
POLICY 6: Guarantee the operation of
participation, follow-up and accountability
mechanisms, consistent with technical,
methodological and political provisions
applicable to REDD+
ACTION 6.2: Implementation and follow-up of the Social and Environmental Management
Framework (ESMF)
ACTION 6.3: Achieve a sound Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV); consider other
methodological issues
ACTION 6.4: Consider gender , youth and the participation of other relevant groups
51
Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation of policies, actions and activities
The ER-P is implemented at the national level. Costa Rica’s goal is to reduce emissions in diferent ways and
to enable the implementation of multiple activities with different stakeholders. As a whole, these activities
are expected to have a global impact on total emissions and removals at the national level, reflected in
terms a decrease in t CO2-e/yr according to the national GHG inventory, against a reference level.
Determining the individualized impact of each policy, action and activity proposed here is not a goal of the
ER-P or of the monitoring system described later in the document (Section 9). Hence, emission reductions
may be a product of multiple types of interventions. Interventions may not have the same impact across
the country, so different combinations of activities may be required to effectively reduce emissions.
In order to assess performance of specific policies, actions and activities, the implementing entities will
define the required indicators in their monitoring and evaluation (M&E) frameworks, without implying that
these indicators should be measured in terms of t CO2-e/yr.. Those policies, actions and activities
implemented by public institutions are required to have M&E provisions, based on MIDEPLAN’s guidelines,
which are not sector-based (i.e. indigenous territories, farmers and forestry producers). In this way, and
with support from CENIGA, these indicators will be compiled to produce reports on the effectiveness of the
policies, actions and activities. These reports will be defined in collaboration with CENIGA in 2016.
Despite the fact that specific policies, activities and actions are not monitored in terms of t CO 2-e/yr , some
of the measures will have a stronger impact on the reduction of emissions. For example, expanding the
PSA program, as well as enhancing the Illegal Logging Control and Forest Fires Management strategies by
SINAC. How these measures are financed is part of the benefit sharing mechanism (Section 15).
MRV, as well as the reference level were defined at the national level. The current C accounting framework
covers some of the anthropogenic land use changes affected by REDD+ activities (Section 7). As explained
in Section 2, this framework will be broadened to cover all REDD+ activities in 2016. Since MRV will be
biennial (Section 9), Costa Rica will produce regular information to understand the collective impact of
these policies, actions and activities.
Consistency of policies with the attention of drivers of deforestation
The Emissions Reduction Program plans to attend the deforestation and degradation drivers, as identified
in the country and during REDD+ implementation. Specifically, on deforestation drivers, there is a
description below on how political actions support the attention of identified drivers (Chart 4.3.2.).
52
Chart 4.3.2. Indirect factors and attention of deforestation drivers by political actions proposed in the Emissions Reduction Program.
Indirect factors
Political attention
National REDD+ Strategy strengthens and consolidates the situation in tenure arrangements with proven lower
deforestation:
Policy 1 contains actions to develop and consolidate public lands and integrate them to the State Natural
Heritage, guaranteeing that they belong to arrangements of proven lower deforestation. It also intends to
contribute to the consolidation of the Protected Areas National System, by increasing the financing for land
purchases, financing the tenure inventory within Protected Wildlife Areas, etc.
The tenure regime
Policy 2 is aimed at finding mechanisms to encourage and strengthen the participation of populations of farmers
and agro producers in the so-called "areas under special management" (indigenous territories, wildlife
refuges and other types of protected areas, refuges and bordering reserves, maritime zone) in which there
are conflicting conditions particularly regarding the rights of land tenure.
Policy 4 also seeks solutions to the problems of land tenure and therefore carbon rights in areas under special
management, as well as improving the delimitation of these zones.
.
Actions to increase control over the change of use in all ages of the forest and on the other hand to make monetary
recognition and incentives for forest regeneration are being promoted, since that has been the driving force in recent
years anyway in improving forest cover in the country.
Forest age
Policy 1 has actions that strengthen the supervision and control within PAs, and in some cases outside of PAs
(strengthening the National System of Conservation Areas, Agronomists Association and the Regional and
Local Committees for Conservation Areas, volunteering, etc.)
Policy 5 improves the competitiveness of the financing mechanisms for forest and agro forestry ecosystems in
relation to other land uses, motivating forest maintenance from an early age. One of them is the
strengthening of the existing modalities of FONAFIFO’s Environmental Services, amongst which
reforestation is found.
53
In the context of REDD + the level of carbon has already been identified; the places with the most problems and policy
actions both for protection categories of Protected Wildlife Areas and of land in special arrangements and private
lands, can be properly oriented.
Deforestation
concentration
Policy 1 promotes the constant updating of deforestation causes and the review and alignment of policies to
address the findings. So existing instruments such as the Payment for Environmental Services or the control
of the State Forestry Administration can emphasize problem areas.
Policy 6 guarantees that through the mechanisms established for the participation of multiple stakeholders, as
well as robust monitoring system that covers the entire national territory, allow follow up actions and the
results thereof at the local level.
The National Forestry Development Plan is reinforced by strengthening the forestry sector at all stages of the
production chain of wood and "profitability" of conservation increases.
Low competitiveness
with regards to the
alternatives
Policy 5 is fully aimed at strengthening investment opportunities in both traditional (Payment for Environmental
Services and the like) and new (Payment for Environmental Services to indigenous peoples/peasants)
methods to enable the participation of the widest variety of actors and activity modalities and therefore
improve the alternative profitability of forest and tree systems in non-forest lands.
Policy 2 provides mechanisms to encourage the participation of agro forestry and peasant producers in REDD+.
Policy 3 provides for the promotion and recognition of sustainable agricultural and agro forestry practices, and the
generation of business models and participation of the academy in strengthening the sector.
54
Labor force, migrations,
social support
Overall, although the migrations issue is not treated, the strategy as such represents a transfer of resources from
other sectors, mostly urban and international, to the Costa Rican rural sector.
Policies 2, 3 and 5 related to increasing the competitiveness of forestry activities will implicitly improve salaries
and the socio-economic conditions of families dedicated to agro forestry.
Policy 6, by promoting the implementation of the Environmental and Social Management Framework (including
compliance with safeguards) and expanding the participation of other population segments, contributes that
rural areas are represented and enjoy MDB benefits through REDD +.
55
4.4. Assessment of land and resource tenure in the accounting area
Assessment methodology of land and resource tenure
Costa Rica’s REDD+ Secretariat made an analysis on land and resource tenure, in order to inform the
potential transfer of titles to emission reductions and the challenges and opportunities of REDD+
implementation. A summary of the main results follows.
Land tenure modalities
In Costa Rica, lands can be classified as: a) Public domain lands, b) Private domain lands held by private
parties, and c) Private domain lands owned by Public institutions.
Some other land tenure classifications condition its use, such as:
Private rights over land, referred to property right or possession right and other use rights derived; here
we have private owners of registered lands and holders of non-registered lands.
Rights on state lands, of which public sector institutions are owners and
Collective rights on lands in indigenous territories whose title holders are Indigenous Integral
Development Associations.
Legal situation of different tenure forms
Property rights can be registered or not at the National Registry, in which case it is known as possession.
Property rights in Costa Rica are covered at the constitutional level (Art. 45), and are developed in the Civil
Code including possession, use and enjoyment, transformation and alienation, defense and exclusion and
restitution and indemnification rights.
As part of the Costa Rican reality, there is an important part of the national territory under public or private
property without titling problems, as well as a wide territory under different management categories that
are part of the State Natural Heritage. These properties also have the guaranty of registrar publicity
provided by the National Registry, as a protection tool in front of third parties. There is also legislation that
covers other type of land tenure such as the possession, which constitutes a minor part of the national
territory, allowing the registration of such rights.
There can be some limitations referred to annotations and liens in the registration at the Real Estate
Registry related to the property rights that could eventually jeopardize participation in the REDD program,
but it cannot be affirmed at this time, because it will depend on the flexibility of the negotiation related to
the legal requirements for the transfer of titles on emission reductions.
Indigenous collective rights on lands:
The regulations on indigenous territories go back to 1939; Indigenous Law No. 6172 set forth that the
indigenous reserves remain the property of indigenous communities and are inalienable and imprescriptible
and must be registered at the National Registrar under their name; their size cannot be modified but by
Law. These changes have been reinforced with the adhesion to relevant international agreements. The
Indigenous law sets that non-indigenous people who are good faith owners or holders within the
indigenous reserves shall be relocated in similar lands, if they wish so; if it is not possible to relocate them or
56
if they do not accept the relocation, it will be necessary to expropriate and indemnify them in accordance
with the procedures set forth in the Expropriations Law by the Lands and Colonization Institute, currently
the Rural Development Institute. The expropriation and indemnification studies and procedures will be
performed by that institution in coordination with the National Commission on Indigenous Affairs. Bad
faith owners shall be evicted in the case of simple holders and in case of owners, it would be necessary to
file a judicial proceeding for the invalidity of the respective title.
In the case of indigenous territories, the legislation is very clear; the problem is that it has not been followed
by all the competent State institutions and no resources have been allocated as set forth in the National
Commission on Indigenous Affairs for the execution of actions tending to recover the lands and make them
available to the indigenous population as it legally corresponds. In concrete, the Rural Development
Institute has not demarcated the indigenous territories and for this reason, the National Commission on
Indigenous Affairs has not been able of performing the population census of indigenous peoples and
therefore there is lack of formal identification of non-indigenous occupants that exercise occupation.
Rights on state lands
The State, autonomous institutions and Municipalities own rights on lands, some of public dominion, and
other private property of those institutions, which for the purposes of interest are analyzed as follows:
State Natural Heritage
Was created in 1969 and is comprised by the forests and forest lands of national reserves, inalienable areas,
properties registered under its name and those that belong to municipalities, autonomous institutions and
other Public Administration organizations. They are non-seizable and inalienable. This Heritage constitutes
a restrictive regime regarding land uses; research activities, training and ecotourism are the only activities
accepted, prior permit. National reserves per Art. 11 of the Lands and Colonization Law No. 2825, and Art.
261 of the Civil Code are lands that are not registered as private property and are not covered by the tenyear possession rule.
Rural Development Institute
The Rural Development Institute, as part of its duties, has developed the titling of lands on behalf of private
parties for a long time; however, from the judicial rulings and Declarations of the General Comptroller’s
Office of the Republic ordering the recovery of lands that were granted titles, it has been necessary to start
administrative adverse effects and judicial proceedings requesting their invalidation.
Border zone 2000 meters
Border zones in an extension of 2,000 meters wide along the border were also declared inalienable and nonsusceptible of acquisition through denounce or possession per Law No. 2825 of 10/14/1961 and its
amendments. However, there are people in these zones with possession rights from many years ago.
In the case of possession rights that could exist in the areas that were national reserves or within the border
zone, the holders cannot legalize their possession rights because the legislation is too old, and therefore it
is impossible for them to show their rights existed prior to those laws. The Rural Development Institute is
processing the invalidation of titles in this area in order to recover the assigned lands, before the
Contentious-Administrative Treasure and Civil Courts.
Port Management and Economic Development Board of the Atlantic Coast:
The Port Management and Economic Development Board of the Atlantic Coast is the owner of the State
lands located in the area crossed by navigable canals that comprehend a ten kilometers area from the sea
57
and inland, parallel to the coast and a strip of three kilometers width, parallel to both sides of the rivers and
the canals managed by the Board, in the province of Limón. Likewise, those lands were occupied under
institutional tolerance by local population that accumulated possession rights for many years. In order to
contribute in solving the land tenure problem in this region, special law No. 9205 published in La Gaceta No.
40 on 2/26/14 was issued, authorizing the institution to issue titles within the aforementioned strip, based
on the Possession Law, prior determination of the Ministry of the Environment and Energy of the areas that
constitute State Natural Heritage.
Taking the foregoing into account, for the implementation of the REDD program, there is current
disposition on titles on State private property lands part of the State Natural Heritage, the lands that are
private property of individual persons and the lands property of Indigenous Development Associations that
are under the Payment for Environmental Services program.
Likewise, at a later stage, the lands registered as private property will be disposed of and will be entered in
some sort of agreement in which they will transfer their titles to the State to be negotiated. With regards to
rights of possession on non-registered lands, Law No. 8640, article 9 will be applied, that enables the
Payment for Environmental Services to non-registered land holders for the case of forest protection, under
certain requirements24; holders within or outside areas belonging or assigned to the State that comply with
the requirements of admissibility into the system according to the aforementioned law are included in this
provision.
The experience in the Payment for Environmental Services shows that most of the requests processed
correspond to properties registered and a small number of non-registered properties that can be included in
the program as mentioned, based on the application of Law No. 8640.
Approach options of existing tenure conflicts
1. The current legislation and its interpretation in some cases, supports the eviction of the holders, the
invalidation of the titles and cadastral plans, in order to consolidate the State Natural Heritage. For this
purpose, it is necessary for the judicial offices to intervene and apply the legislation, invalidating titles and
cadastral plans if corresponding, or defining the indemnifications for good faith holders.
2. Legislation to clarify the possession rights situation, permitting a solution for land tenure. It is a
legislative reform to take care of the problem in an integral manner, because so far the efforts to partially
amend the law to solve the problems have not been successful. This reform requires a modification in the
scope on the form of doing conservation different than the current one, considering the people within the
conservation dynamics of natural resources.
3. Also for the case of situations showing some level of incertitude even in the case of ownership of
registered lands, the figure of payment for results or of year due currently applied for the Payment for
24
Law No. 8640 has allowed the National Fund for Forest Financing to grant the Payment for Environmental Services to
forest holders, and in this sense, it allows the legitimization of the acknowledgment of mitigation actions to those land
holders who may receive the corresponding payment within the National REDD+ Strategy, as long as they can comply
with the requirements there set.
58
Environmental Services can result in an instrument to favor the payment in those lands, reducing the risk of
reversals.
4. In relation to other indigenous territories, what corresponds is the compliance of the legislation by the
institutions involved, in order to restitute the indigenous population of the lands occupied by nonindigenous people.
The program will have positive impacts on owners and holders of land by valuing the emission reduction
actions they might perform. Regarding the impact on land tenure arrangements, it is necessary to affirm
that the possibility of significantly influencing surpasses the management possibilities of National REDD+
Strategy, since it is a matter that incorporates a variety of State institutions; it is possible to strategically
contribute to some of the activities, not intending to provide an integral solution to such a complex
problematic.
4.5. Analysis of laws, statutes and other regulatory frameworks
Legal framework on climate change and the forestry sector in Costa Rica
Climate change and international regulations
Costa Rica has been proactive in promoting and participating in the international conventions and
agreements for environmental protection (Chart 4.5.1.). Additionally, it must be mentioned that the
international agreements, per article 7 of the Costa Rican Political Constitution, have a higher rank than
regular national laws. Said hierarchy is ratified in article of the Public Administration General Law N° 6227,
2/5/1978.
Chart 4.5.1. Main international conventions and agreements related to climate change and environmental
protection ratified by Costa Rica.
Law
Convention Name
Date
Law N°
7414
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change
La Gaceta N° 126 of 7/4/94
Law N° 7513
Central American Convention on climate changes
Guatemala
La Gaceta N° 128 of 7/6/1995
Law N°
5605
Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Flora and Fauna
1/28/1975
Law N°
7224
Law N°
7226
Law N°
7416
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance
especially as Waterfowl Habitat (RAMSAR
Convention)
Central American Convention for Environmental
Protection (Constitutes the Central American
Committee for Environment and Development)
Convention on Biological Diversity
La Gaceta N° 86 de 8/5/1991
La Gaceta N° 88 of 5/10/1991
La Gaceta N° 143 of 7/28/1994
59
Law N°
7433
Law N° 7572
Law N°
7699
Convention for the conservation of biodiversity and
the protection of priority wildlife areas in Central
America
Regional convention for the management and
conservation of forest ecosystems and the
development of Tree plantations
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
and Drought, in particular in African countries
La Gaceta N° 193 of
10/11/1994
La Gaceta N° 47 of 3/6/1996
La Gaceta of 11/3/1997
National forestry sector
In relation to specific legislation issued at the country level that aims to protect the forest, it must be
started by the Political Constitution which is the highest norm, which in Article 50 incorporated the right of
all people to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, consistent with that principle, several
Laws, regulations and executive decrees exist, whose purpose is ensuring the conservation of the
environment, which are detailed below (Chart 4.5.2.).
Chart 4.5.2. Legal framework applicable to the national forestry sector.
Forestry Law N° 7575 of 4/14/1996 and its Forestry Regulation, Decree Nº 25721-MINAE of 10/17/1996
as amended.
The Law states as a function of the State to "ensure the conservation, protection and management of
natural forests and the production, exploitation, industrialization and promotion of the country's forest
resources." Prohibits changing the land use in forest-covered land and regulates the conditions for its use;
regulates the industrialization and export of roundwood. Creates the figure of forest regents and involves
civil society in the protection and conservation of forests and forest lands, defines environmental services
and creates the National Forestry Financing Fund to finance sustainable management of forest activities,
reforestation, agro forestry systems, recovery of denuded areas, improved utilization and industrialization
and for the Payment for Environmental Services of forests and plantations. In relation to protected wildlife
areas it grants the State the authority to expropriate private domain lands; it establishes the State Natural
Heritage and regulates the activities that the State may authorize; creates the protection areas. It also
includes a chapter on offenses and penalties for invasion of the State Natural Heritage, the use of forest
resources without permission and environmental damage.
Executive Decree N° 38323-MINAE, La Gaceta N° 72 of 2/14/2014.
Regulates the Payment for Environmental Services, which is complemented with the Manual for Payment
of Environmental Services, published in La Gaceta No. 46 of 3/6/2009, as amended, which provides for all
the procedures for awarding payments for environmental services.
Decree N° 27998-MINAE, of 6/22/1999.
Sets the Principles, Criteria and Indicators for the Sustainable Management of Secondary Forests and the
Forestry Certification in Costa Rica.
Executive Decree N° 27388-MINAE of 9/18/1998.
On Principles, Criteria and Indicators for the Exploitation and Management of Forests and Certification.
Executive Decree N° 34559- MINAE of 1/8/2008.
60
Sets the Sustainability Standards for Natural Forests Management: Principles, Criteria and Indicators, Code
of Practices and Procedural Manual and the Regulations on Forestry Regencies.
Decree N° 38444-MINAE of 2/20/2014.
Regulates the requirements for the accreditation of forestry regents, develops the duties both of the
regents, and of their Professional Association; it also includes all the formal procedures for the performance
of regencies and sanctions in case of failure.
Executive Decree N° 25700-MINAE of 11/15/1996.
Sets a comprehensive and complete ban on the exploitation of endangered trees.
Organic Law of Environment N° 7554 de 10/4/1995.
Sets the Environmental Impact Assessment as a tool to protect the environment and creates the National
Environmental Technical Secretariat as the office competent to perform them. Reiterates the authority of
the Executive Branch to establish protected wildlife areas and to include as part of these private farms,
establishing the expropriation as a means to achieve it, forbids the reduction of these areas unless technical
studies justifying the change are issued. Creates the Environment Comptroller's office attached to the
Minister of the Environment and Energy. Provides for administrative sanctions before the violation of rules
that might be harmful to the environment and creates the Environmental Administrative Tribunal as a
decentralized entity of MINAE, with exclusive competence and functional independence in the
performance of its duties; its rulings will be mandatory. These instruments have been applied contributing
in great extent with the conservation of the environment.
Biodiversity Law N° 7788 of 4/30/1998 and its Regulation, Executive Decree N° 34433-MINAE of
3/11/2008.
Article 22 creates the National System of Conservation Areas, a decentralized body of the Ministry of the
Environment and Energy, which integrates the competences in forestry, wildlife and protected areas. It is in
charge of the management and institutional coordination in order to plan and execute actions, as well as
the issuance of policies to ensure the sustainable management of natural resources. The system
incorporates the Directorate General of Wildlife, the State Forestry Administration and the National Parks
Service that will fulfill their duties and responsibilities as a single instance, using the administrative
structure of the System, without prejudice to the purposes for which they were established. Includes rules
that promote the adoption of incentives and compensation for environmental services for the conservation
and sustainable use of components of biodiversity, including criteria that respond to principles of
environmental law of great importance for conservation, such as the precautionary principle or indubio pro
natura, the environmental public interest and integration. It also refers to the payment for environmental
services, as incentives for the conservation of biodiversity
National Parks Service Law, Nº 6084 of 8/24/1977.
Sets prohibited or permitted activities within the national parks.
Land Use, management and Conservation Law, N° 7779 of 4/30/1998 and its regulation, Executive
Decree N° 29375-MAG of 8/8/2000.
It aims to protect, conserve and improve lands in integrated and sustainable management with the other
natural resources; it states that the Ministry of Agriculture and Cattle Farming shall coordinate with the
Ministry of the Environment and Energy the management actions for land conservation and the
61
conservation of environmental resources and regulates matters related to use practices, management and
soil remediation.
Law for the Development, promotion and enhancement of organic agricultural activities, N° 8591 of
6/28/2007.
Defines the agricultural environmental benefits, including the mitigation of GHG emissions by means of
fixing, reducing, seizing, storing and absorbing; the protection of water; the protection of biodiversity in
integral organic agricultural systems, for their conservation and sustainable use, as well as the protection of
organic agro-ecosystems.
The Indigenous Law N° 6172 of 11/29/1977 and its Regulation, Executive Decree No. 8487 of April 26,
1978 and Executive Decree No. 13568 of April 30, 1982 (Legal representation of Indigenous
Communities by Development Associations as Local Governments).
Sets the inalienable and imprescriptible character of indigenous territories, stating that they are the
property of indigenous communities; it also includes the rule mentioned in article 7 according to which
forest lands must keep said nature in order to maintain the hydrological balance of watersheds, conserve
wildlife; as a principle, it states that natural resources must be exploited in a rational manner.
Legal framework specific for REDD+ in Costa Rica
REDD+ Preparation
Executive Decree N° 37352-MINAET of 8/27/2012, published in La Gaceta N° 220 of 11/14/2012 sets the legal
framework for the coordination and preparation of REDD+. This executive decree implements the
Executive Secretariat that works as the support to the National Fund for Forest Financing in the design of
National REDD+ Strategy, per the terms and conditions set forth in the FCPF Readiness Donation
agreement, donation TF012692. This Secretariat is assigned with duties such as the development of the
consultation plan, the execution of the Social and Environmental Strategic Assessment, the development
of a forest reference level and the preparation of National REDD+ Strategy. The National Fund for Forest
Financing is defined as the headquarters for the Secretariat. The decree also created a REDD+ Executive
Committee and assigns it specific roles. Currently, said decree is undergoing an amendment in such a way
that it clarifies the specific duties and responsibilities of the different public organizations involved in the
implementation of the Emissions Reduction Program, as well as other provisions related to the safeguards
and participation mechanisms of the relevant stakeholders in the implementation of the Emissions
Reduction Program, as well as other provisions related to the safeguards and participation mechanisms of
the relevant stakeholders. Since the aforementioned decree is still under negotiation, more explicit
institutional arrangements are not included.
With a view of improving the implementation framework of National REDD+ Strategy and the Emissions
Reduction Programs, a decree is being prepared to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the different
relevant stakeholders. At this moment, there is a bipartite committee between and the relevant
stakeholders represented at the National Forestry Office.
REDD+ Implementation
The legislation addressed to protect natural resources in Costa Rica is abundant and even though some
weaknesses can be identified related to the legal interpretation, confusion about some competences and
lack of institutional and financial capacity for their compliance in some areas, it can be affirmed that overall,
its contents provide sufficient support for the policies, actions and activities proposed by the National
62
REDD+ Strategy and in the Emissions Reduction Program. The decree also includes regulations that clarify
the issue related to the administrating entity of the Strategy which shall be the State Forestry
Administration through the National System of Conservation Areas and the National Fund for Forest
Financing for the competences of each institution according to the legislation in force.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, there are some features that the legislation might need to amend for it to
be harmonic with other rules of higher rank, such as the handling of natural resources by indigenous
peoples so that their right of self-determination and autonomy is included; however, taking into
consideration the implications of a legal reform, it is possible to improve the regulations by means of
executive decrees, that would not prevent the subsequent legislative amendment. The topics related to the
participation and insertion in areas under special arrangements may be strengthened with the issuance or
amendment of executive decrees to strengthen their participation according to the particular features of
each group.
Regarding the legal security related to land tenure, the legislation provides legal tools to move forward in
this process, such as the case of the indigenous territories. For other tenure rights included within the two
thousand meters border zone, the State Natural Heritage, the lands under administration of the Port
Management and Economic Development Board of the Atlantic Coast, titling projects of the Rural
Development Institute, the situation is complex and although there is legislation related to land tenure, it
does not respond to the existing reality, and the interpretation of the rules is made both at the
administrative and judicial levels, that do not favor land holders. In order to solve the land tenure problem,
a legal reform is necessary to include innovative ways to conserve natural resources, allowing for the
integration of local populations.
Finally, it would also be appropriate to amend the definition of the environmental services at the legal level,
allowing the incorporation of other type of activities in addition to those appearing in the legislation in
force.
4.6. Expected lifetime of the proposed ER Program
Implementation period of actions and interventions
The main political actions that the country implements in the forestry sector are based on current
legislation have public resource sources in the framework of the National Planning System and budget. The
Payment for Environmental Services program is the largest investment and it has resources granted by Law
or regulations, either due to taxes on fuel or for water use fees. The foregoing implies that the main policies
for forest conservation are guaranteed ad perpetuam, at least as long as the legal framework remains valid,
and it is very unlikely that it will be amended in the short term because of the high level of social support
that these initiatives have. On the other hand, the country is working on a long term financing strategy to
produce appropriate conditions to guarantee the sustainability of the National REDD+ Strategy, including
access options to financial resources from the private sector, the World Bank (Green and Inclusive
Development Program in Productive Rural Areas), the Climate Green Fund and bilateral cooperation.
The Emissions Reduction Program will be implemented in the 2010-2015 period. This, considering the
formal finalization of the Carbon Fund in 2025 and the country assessment on the Nationally Determined
Intended Contributions to be submitted before the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change during the 2020-2025 period. In this sense, the Program will be part of a larger effort that the
63
country will exercise in order to move sufficient financial funds for the full implementation of the National
REDD+ Strategy.
64
5. Stakeholder Consultation and Participation
5.1. Description of stakeholder consultation process
Relationship between REDD+’s National Strategy and the Emission Reduction Program
consultation process
The policies, actions and activities proposed in the Emissions Reduction Program Document are an integral
part of Costa Rica’s REDD+ National Strategy. Both documents were developed and discussed with a wide
participation of relevant stakeholders. This process will continue until March 2016, to obtain their final
feedback. The above-mentioned is developed in the consultation process framework, which was defined
since the beginning of REDD+ readiness phase. The consultation process is composed by three stages:
information, pre-consultation and consultation. The Policies and actions proposed in the Program and in
the Strategy are a result of the information and pre-consultation stages, which included the
systematization of risks and opportunities identified by the relevant stakeholders during the Social and
Environmental Strategic Assessment (SESA).
The SESA workshop was held in 2011. It was an activity in which the stakeholders validated the different
actors that encompass the forestry sector. The relevant stakeholders were defined as indigenous people,
small and medium forestry producers, wood industries, academy and government. The stakeholders
mentioned above, are now parties of REDD+ Executive Committee. During the workshop they also
developed their feedback for Costa Rica’s Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-PP). As a result of this
workshop, the stakeholders provided the main risks and opportunities of the strategic options proposed in
the R-PP. This risks and opportunities are approached in the Environmental and Social Management
Framework. The process developed to define the policies, actions and activities is explained in Section 4.3.,
sub-section Methodology for the definition of the measures proposed.
As part of the feedback process, in August 2015, the National REDD+ Strategy and the Emissions Reduction
Program were presented to the Executive Committee, as the representative entity of Relevant
Stakeholders . It was also presented to a larger audience, constituted by members from the social and
private forestry sector. During both meetings, participants’ comments were compiled and then
incorporated in bothe document’s relevant sections . Even though the consultation process is going to be
extended until March 2016, no substantive modifications regarding proposals on policies and actions are
expected; however, if that was the case, all contributions will be incorporated in updated versions of both
documents. As part of the given participatory approach, both documents must be dynamic and they have
to properly adjust, as information or political decisions arise in order to attend political goals or the relevant
stakeholders’ needs. These might arise as part of the consultation process itself, or from the Information,
Feedback and Disconformities Mechanism, described in Section 14 of this document.
65
Figure 5.1.1. Structure of indigenous groups and territories in Costa Rica.
Consultation and exchange information mechanisms during the design of policies, actions and
activities
As shown in the figure above, Costa Rica’s twenty four indigenous communities, decided to organize
themselves into four territorial groups, gathered according to their resemblances regarding geographic
location, culture and worldview,. They also established their participation process during REDD+’s
readiness phase, taking into account their culture and national and international legislation.
Indigenous people, defined that their participation would be based into a three-stage process: information:
corresponding to a culturally appropriate explanation about REDD+ and the progress made during
readiness phase, including a continuos communication process, informing about the main achievments and
following steps. For this purpose, the cultural mediators program was implemented. Cultural mediators are
indigenous people trained in topics related to REDD+, which have the ability of bringing simplified
information in their own languages, using the same REDD+ conceptualization from their worldview. They
developed this process through dialogues wihin the indigenous action plan. Additionally, cultural mediators
performed using culturally appropriate materials, which were designed using a participatory approach, as a
result of the participative communication plans that established the appropriate communication channels
to spread the information. The second stage corresponded to pre-consultation was the space in which the
analytical discussion on the indigenous special topics, safeguards, co-benefits and related aspects was
undertaken. Finally, the consultation stage as so, is the final validation of REDD+ Strategy.
Likewise, in order to guarantee a sustainable dialogue with indigenous people, and upon their request, an
indigenous committee shall be created. This entity will meet three times a year to keep an active dialogue
with the government. The Committee’s aime is to have a constant feedback in all REDD+’s stages.
66
Moreover, forestry and agro-forestry producers established their own participation structure aswell. In
2012-2013, a series of informative activities regarding REDD+ and its relation with the small and medium
agroforestry producers were held along the country’s regions and sub-regions. The participants defined the
sector’s representative structure during said meetings. In 2014, six regional workshops and a national
workshop were held, as part of the early dialogue initiative, to discuss drivers of deforestation and
degradation in each region. During the activities, they also analyzed REDD+’s strategic options, providing
feedback and defining possible risks according to the sector’s needs and perspectives. The activities
mentioned above contribuited with the proper feedback to the elaborate the policies, actions and activities
of Costa Rica’s REDD+ National Strategy. These discussions deepened in 2015. During this process
contributions were compiled into a payment for environmental services proposal, addressed to small
forestry and agro-foresty producers. This proposal was included as a political action within the National
REDD+ Strategy.
Understandable language and mechanism’s cultural appropriate approach
As described in the preceding section, the information process is based on a participative communication
strategy that contemplates the cultural mediators program, as well as the culturally appropriate
communication channels, wich were defined jointly with the indigenous people. In this sense, didactic
materials, such as banners with information about climate change, the importance of carbon in forests and
REDD+ activities were prepared to enhance the cultural mediator’s performance. Furthermore, two
informational videos were created, local radio stations were used to transmit advertisments and invitations
for the meetings, several posters, brochures and local communication channels were developed to describe
how indigenous people interpret REDD+ concept according to their worldview. Moreover, a web site and
social networks were created and the, Bank Information Center developed a case study analizing the whole
process. National Mass Media has transmitted over 20 news.
Since early stages, indigenous leaders stated that REDD+ was a very complex and technical process, and
would present a challenge to guarantee the indigenous people full understanding. Because of these, the
Bri-bri-Cabecar Indiginous Network), , proposed to implement the cultural mediators’ program. Cultural
Mediators are indigenous people, who have been trained in matters related to REDD+ capable to provide
the simplified information in their own language. This process is implemented through participative
communication plans, in which the proper communication channels were defined to spread information,
such as REDD+’s conceptualization according to their worldview . The main communication channels
included banners, local media (radio) and dialogues among the community during the pre-consultation
workshops. This initiative was implemented in the five indigenous blocks, according the organization
structure defined..
The consultation process developed is considered a non-carbon benefit itself, because of the capacity
building achieved. The activities undertaken were developed with culturally appropriate materiales. These
materials were possible, because of the indigenous people active participation, which analyzed ILO 169,
and Cancun safeguards along with the government. This way they interpreted the elements mentioned
above according to their reality and culture. As a result of this process an early dialogue among the
indigenous people and the central government has begun. This to improve communitie’s quality of life ,
their rightscontinue to guarantee transparency in the future.. In the near future, the last stage of the
consultation process will take place, as well as , broadcasting results, strengthening of women participation
and the planning of the indigenouss people special topics; A series of studies will be developed with REDD+,
67
how ever, it is expected to be continue with the central government, since some of them, like land tenure
go beyond REDD
Along the information and pre-consultation process with the small and medium agroforestry producers a
didactic methodology and participatory approach has been undertaken. This way, the different concepts
were understood by this sector allowing them to provide the proper feedback according to their needs.
Furthermore, different committees and a communication strategy have been created for each. This way
the people and their have access to REDD+`s information. Regarding the small and medium forestry and
agroforestry payment for environmental services proposal, it was the sector itself that carryied out the
analysis and production activities, as well as their socialization, with a methodology that considers their
daily lives in productive activities. There is an initial proposal that will be considered in subsequent analyses
and dialogues.
General vision for the consultations process and sessions during the Program’s implementation
The definition of formal and informal participation strucutres that promotes the dialogue among the sector
is one of the main milestones of the readiness phase, regarding the participation and consultation process
with the relevant stakeholders. REDD+’s Executive Committee is one of these structures. This instance
serves as a consultative committee that facilitates dialogue and participation between indigenous people,
agro-forestry producers; land overexploited owners and the government.
Publications and other information sources used
The information process is based on a participative communication strategy that comprises appropriate
communication channels, defined in plans that were produced with each relevant stakeholder. For the
indigenous people, the main communication process is the cultural mediators program. On the other hand,
for small and medium forestry and agro-forestry producers, a communication plan was defined for the
informative stage and a communication committee was created. Furthermore, corporate communication
elements were set for the private sector, government and academy.
A diversity of communication tools has been developed, such as informational banners on climate change,
importance of carbon in forests and REDD+ activities. Three informational videos were developed to inform
about REDD+’s general vision. The videos are about REDD+ readiness phas, the cultural mediators training
process and the latest video is about lessons learned and main challenges. Additionally, posters on how
indigenous people interpret REDD+ concept according to their worldview were prepared, advertisement in
local radio, brochures and local media, such as posters and flyers. Also, a web site is available, as well as
social networks. The Bank Information Center wrote a study case about the participation process and
approximately 100 lectures have been presented in universities and state institutions. Approximately, 20
news in local media were transmitted.
During the implementation of the Emissions Reduction Program and the National REDD+ Strategy, the
aim is to continue with a two-way communication process, broadcasting the initiative’s progress through
the communication committees and communication channels in state institutions. There is also an
intention to create a learning process in referent issues to co-benefits and it is expected that the
communities themselves will empower the communication process.
68
Mechanisms to receive and respond to feedback
Several mechanisms to sustain a permanent dialogue with the stakeholders were set, such as the
Information, Feedback and Disconformities Mechanism (described in detail in Section 14 of this
document), Costa Rica’s REDD+ website, cultural mediators process, territorial coordinators and the
Executive Committee. Additionally, product of the early dialogues with indigenous people and small agroforestry producers, a direct relationship was established between the REDD+ Secretariat and the
stakeholders, which has facilitated the achieved results and a participatory processes. It is also important
to mention the broadcasting process for technical documents and reports to obtain stakeholders’ feedback.
The process starts by sharing each document’s draft along with a matrix,. This way stakeholders can
present their questions andof comments that the actors send with their consultations and/or remarks; they
then present the documents developed in a workshop and finally, they are sent via e-mail and become
available in the website.
Continuous and effective consultation process during the Program’s implementation
Starting the readiness phase, the main challenge was to set the organizational and representative
structures for each sector. However, upon completion of this phase, the challenge described above became
one of its main results, because the stakeholders have their own structures or have strengthened the
existing mechanisms.
Indigenous peoples created four territorial groups, defined according to their geographic location, culture,
political vision and worldview. At the same time, they created a direct communication channel with the
Presidency Minister form Government, with a defined agenda, being REDD+ one of the items. Additionally,
small forestry and agro forestry producers defined the participation platforms in six regions along the
country.
During th Emissions Reduction Program, implementation, the aim is to facilitate three meetings per year
to strengthen the structures and promote dialogue and information exchange on the progress of the
processes. Regional communication committees will also remain active for both sectors and annual
strategic and operational communication plans will be prepared for each sector.
Comprehensive and effective participation of the relevant stakeholders
Costa Rica’s readiness phase has been highly participative. The relevant stakeholders’ needs are taken into
consideration. An intersesectoral dialogue has been developed for over five years, with solid participation
structures and feedback. The Executive Committee is one of these figures; it has representation of all the
sectors and its purpose is to guarantee comprehensive and effective participation. The members of the
Committee were selected through democratic procedures and it is consistent with Cancun safeguards.
It is of high importance that REDD+ opened the possibility to adapt the Payment for Environmental
Services Program to the stakeholder’s needs. This new proposarl takes into account indigenous people and
small agro forestry producers’ needs according to their culture and daily life. In this sense, both sectors have
produced a proposal for additional modalities of Payments for Environmental Services that are being
analyzed for their development during the implementation stage.
69
Participation and Transparency processes for the discusing issues related to land tenure and
resource
During a national workshop, the strategic options for emission reductions defined in the R-PP were
presented, to the relevant stakeholders. In the activity, the stakeholders analyzed the proposal’s social and
environmental impacts. This way, the indigenous people defined five main risks that would be addressed as
thematic axes or special topics in order to mitigate the risks. These topics are: land tenure, benefit sharing ,
natural resource management in indigenous territories, participative monitoring and the overlap between
protected areas and indigenous territories. Even though these five topics described above are a priority to
this sector, a critical route to address them within REDD+’s Framework was developed. The critical route
undertakes,+, studies such as the design of an Indigenous and Small foresty and agroforestry
producersPSA, topography training for indigenous people, analysis of the Dualok Kimo Program, for the
monitoring and assessment topic. However, it is important to mention that the implementation of some of
them such as land tenure will be implemented through the central government. In Section 4.4 form this
document is an exhaustive explanation of these points. .
Transparency and participation process for the defining arrangements in benefit sharing
In 2011, an integral information and participation process began. During the process the stakeholders
recommended benefit-sharing models beyond the Payment for Environmental Services Program. The
reocmmendations promoted several discussions, leading to proposals of new financing mechanisms for the
REDD+ National Strategy.. The political actions defined consider the possibility to continue working on
these initiatives in order to reach an appropriate framework for the benefit-sharing.
5.2. Summary of the comments received and how these views have been taken into
account in the design and implementation of the ER Program
Following the workshops held during the information and pre-consultation stages with the relevant
stakeholders (indigenous populations, small and medium forestry and agro forestry producers,
government, private sector, academy), risks and opportunities were identified in relation to the 10 strategic
options initially proposed in the R-PP. Once the risks and opportunities were identified, over 100 repeated
topics were systematized and grouped in 27 larger topics, which were wider and more integral. Afterwards,
five risk axes were identified. From this information, the REDD+ Secretariat proposed six policies that cover
the risk and opportunities axes. It is important to mention that the Secretariat performed a consistency
analysis of the strategic options initially filed in the R-PP, with the policies, actions and tasks finally defined,
finding compatibility amongst them. Finally, the six policies defined will be subject to the consultation
process starting in November, 2015.
Additionally, and according to the practices implemented towards the participation of relevant
stakeholders during the preparation stage, and following the guidelines of the consultation plan, a national
workshop was held in order to have a first approach to the representatives of each sector and to show them
the first version of the Emissions Reduction Program document. Members of the REDD+ Executive
Committee, the Board of Directors of the Costa Rican Forestry Chamber, the National Forestry Office and
the National Fund for Forestry Financing were invited, as well as the regional representatives, small and
medium forestry and agro forestry producers, indigenous advisors to the REDD+ Secretariat, coordinators
of indigenous territorial blocks, members of the business sector and government institutions. During the
workshop, the Executive Director of the National Fund for Forest Financing welcomed the participants and
explained that the activity represented a first approach and stated the relationship between the National
70
REDD+ Strategy and the Emissions Reduction Program. Subsequently, the REDD+ Secretariat presented
the first drafts of the Strategy and the Program, and finally, a space for questions and comments on both
presentations was opened.
In extraordinary meeting of the Executive Committee held on September 10, elements of the Emissions
Reduction Program were with the World Bank’s Mission and it was agreed to send this section to the
attendants so the section was validated.
Below, there is a systematization of the comments and feedback of the document for the Emissions
Reduction Program during the meetings mentioned above. Additionally, it was decided that this activity
would be executed with each sector.
71
Table 5.2.1. Matrix of the comments received during the first socialization workshop of the Emissions
Reduction Program.
Interested stakeholder
Government
Private forestry sector
Comment
The agricultural sector sees
potential in the program, as the
REED+ process has been quite
productive and innovative,
providing studies with relevant
technical data and platforms that
give rise to multi-sector
discussions
It was determined that there are
opportunities to identify pilot
experiences in coffee and cattle
agro forestry schemes that could
be useful. It is also necessary to
define the agro forestry systems
that could be within the REDD+
scheme, since they are part of the
agricultural sector and could
trigger inter-sector coordination
processes
The sector suggests considering
the possibility to include carbon
captured in the ground within the
accounting because it is an
important reservoir for the
agricultural sector.
The draft of the Emissions
Reduction Program addresses
only 3 of the 5 REDD+ activities
(conservation, avoided
deforestation, rising stock). The
sector expressed its concern
about the non-inclusion of forest
management within the program
and wishes to know the reason
for this decision and in what time
the remaining activities will be
included.
Response
The secretariat recognizes the
importance of these multi-sector
platforms and discussions and will
promote said dialogue.
Currently, these proposals are
being supported with the design
of the Peasant IPSA.
Furthermore, it will consider the
progress in the coffee and cattle
NAMAs and in any other NAMA
to be designed by the Ministry of
Agriculture, in order to achieve
seamless integration.
Notes are taken with possibilities
on how it can be included.
Given the strong interest of the
sector in including these
activities, the Emissions
Reduction Program was amended
to incorporate the five REDD+
activities, including sustainable
management of forests and the
enhancement of carbon stocks
from forest plantations. This must
be supported with data and
methods for the accounting of
emission reductions for these
activities, and for this reason,
FONAFIFO has assigned REDD+
preparation budget and its
development is expected for
2016.
72
Comment
Response
It is understood that both the
REDD+ Strategy as well as the
Emissions Reduction Program will
be developed in the framework of
the forest and rural development
program (pbdr); however, it is
necessary to clarify pbdr’s legal
framework.
The forest and rural development
program is a political initiative of
the present government which
should be based on an
appropriate legal framework. In
the meantime the National
REDD+ Strategy and the
Emissions Reduction Program will
be conceptualized within the
Forest and Rural Development
Program, without implying an
affectation to the strategic
objectives of REDD+.
The private forestry sector has
participated in various activities
for the preparation of the
Strategy as well as in the followup consultancies to promote the
sustainable use of wood.
However, the sector considers
that its participation in the
construction of the proposed
Program as well as in the drafting
of document was not sufficient,
which is reflected in the fact that
forest management was not
included in the draft program
proposal which has a very strong
focus towards conservation. Due
to this circumstance, it is
requested that these issues be
included in the operational
planning of the emissions
reduction program.
It is requested to include in the
preparation package activities ($5
million), the reference levels and
other requirements for the
prompt incorporation of forest
management, forest plantations,
carbon stocks in wood products
and agro forestry systems.
With the new resources from the
donation, the dialogue process
including local, regional and
national levels will be
strengthened.
73
Comment
The private forestry sector
requests that sector negotiations
of the benefit distribution
mechanism be started, so that it
generates ownership and trust
amongst the relevant
stakeholders.
The definition of the strategic
role for this Program is very
ambitious, eradicate poverty and
contribute significantly to the
purchase of lands in ASP, this
could disperse the foundation of
REDD+ in Costa Rica in relation
with emissions reduction by
deforestation and degradation of
forests and the enhancement of
carbon reserves, a key role of
forest owners, located in private
property.
To propose the reduction levels
mentioned above in page 9, the
country depends on the forests
located in private property;
however, as we will discuss
below, the distribution of benefits
is focused on promoting the
consolidation of the ASP and
other activities not linked to
forest ecosystems, except the
support they may receive through
the payment for environmental
services program.
It is evident that the country is
unable to sustain its forest cover
entirely with the PSA program
and maintaining forests in full
protection, so it is essential to
foster productive linkages, as
properly stated in the strategic
role of the Emissions Reduction
Program, namely: …strengthen
the participation of all relevant
Response
REDD+, intends to contribute
achieving the millennium goals,
for instance, in reducing poverty,
since eradicating poverty through
REDD+ is in fact pretentious.
74
Comment
stakeholders in the reactivation of
production, processing,
marketing and consumption of
domestic wood, through a joint
effort between the State and
private forestry, in particular by
fostering entrepreneurship
amongst micro, small and
medium producers. However,
this is not reflected in the actions
of the Program and is not either
in the mechanism for the
distribution of benefits. Reversing
deforestation and forest
degradation is only possible
thanks to the effort of private
owners. Hence the importance of
resuming sustainable forest
management with commercial
purposes as part of the emissions
reduction program, otherwise it
will not be sustainable, given that
the owner obtains no rent for
submitting his land to forest
conservation. Added to the fact
that the deforested area within
the ASP is small and therefore
has little impact.
Notice how at the level of
deforestation drivers in private
forests the lack of
competitiveness of the forestry
management is considered as
well as the high income of
agricultural products,
nonetheless, there is an
administrative ban to forest
management that severely
restricts the adoption of
management plans, which is not
mentioned in the document..
Response
75
Comment
The argument for excluding
sustainable management of
natural forests is the lack of
information, however, during the
consultancy mentioned in the
preparation stage, minimum
information required was
produced to generate a baseline
for this activity. Which as we saw
is very low, so there are enormous
opportunities for this activity. The
forestry sector considers
unacceptable that this Program
does not include sustainable
forest management although it
stands out as one of the most
important barrier to address
deforestation drivers.
On page 25, it is confirmed that
the Program is mainly focused in
solving the problems of lands
purchases within the ASP, and its
benefits will be limited to reduce
the deforestation drivers in Costa
Rica; it only produces a small
relief to the government in view
of its inability to solve this
problem.
It is questionable that the
Program contemplates
prioritization of the PSA for forest
protection in ASP and to consider
a possible increase of the
amounts just because these are
lands not properly expropriated
by the government. Clearly, the
purchase of some lands does not
guarantee a significant impact on
the reduction of deforestation,
and it is clear that deforestation
mostly takes place in private
property lands. It is also
unacceptable that it is intended
to allocate a percentage of the
Response
76
Comment
Response
mechanism resources of REDD+
distribution of benefits to the
purchase of lands in ASP.
The Private Forestry Sector
considers that the focus of the
Program is institutional, since it
seeks to strengthen the PSA
Program, the consolidation of
Protected Wildlife Areas and the
control programs of forest fires
and illegal logging of SINAC;
however, its impact is very limited
in private property areas, which is
where most of the deforestation
and forest cover loss take place.
It is requested to include activities
that generate productive
linkages, such as forest
management, forest plantations
and agro forestry systems. As
these are the ones that can offer a
greater contribution to improve
the quality of life, rural
development and forest
sustainability. .
The CCF asks to develop the
baseline for the productive
sector; therefore, it is necessary
to identify funding for this action,
without decimating the scarce
resources available to develop
business models as proposed by
the private forestry sector.
A period no longer than one year
must be established to develop a
full baseline of the country
including the productive actions
such as forest plantations and
forest management.
77
Comment
According to the CCF, it is
essential to set a clause in the
cooperation agreement of the
Emissions Reduction Program
that in the course of a year will be
presented as action plans for all
the strategic actions of REDD+
including increased carbon with
forest plantations and sustainable
forestry management.
The CCF considers that the
country baseline must be
reviewed so the lack of data does
not produce wrong estimates on
basic concepts such as the
identification of areas under
deforestation risk to complete
the criteria for the distribution of
benefits.
The CCF sets that resources to
develop business models of the
forestry sector should receive
priority in Costa Rica.
Small and Medium forestry and
agro forestry producers
The sector considers that
Fonafifo has made a good
resource management and that it
also has an executive secretariat
with trustable technicians that
have tried to train us on different
subjects and have periodically
informed of the process and their
management. Additionally, the
sector considers that both
documents (the REDD+ Strategy
and the Emission Reduction
Program) are proposals, and
consider they constitute good
input; however, they ask for time
to be able to analyze the
documents in their respective
regions.
Response
One of the responsibilities of the
Executive Secretariat is the
periodical information of the
progress on PIRs, as well as the
strengthening of sectors’
capacities. This document is a
draft of the proposal which must
receive feedback and be
consolidated within the
framework of the consultation
process that is being performed
with the PIRs. The process has a
period for feedback on the
proposals. The secretariat will
clearly inform the terms for said
feedback.
78
Comment
The REDD+ process has had wide
participation and it is natural in
processes that the biggest the
number of participants, the
biggest the challenge to reach
agreements; however, the
members of the Executive
Committee have great
expectations before REDD+ and
have been able to work
harmonically and to achieve an
inter-sector dialogue space.
The sector requests that the
decree for REDD+ Strategy be
ready prior to the consultation,
the orienting principles are good,
but the policies differ from them.
It is necessary to negotiate in the
decree, the peasant psa, the
mechanism for the distribution of
benefits.
The sector considers that the
emission reduction program
should be oriented towards the
strengthening of the country
productive center, and not only to
strengthen the State natural
heritage but that it should be
more balanced between the
different relevant stakeholders of
the Costa Rican forestry sector.
agro forestry systems should
contribute to the country’s
REDD+ strategy.
policies developed in the
emission reduction program must
be coherent with the input
compiled during the SESA
process. In the current scheme,
only one of the six policies is
addressed to the small producers’
sector. This group stated that
Response
REDD+ is a participative
construction process that must
have high participation of the
relevant stakeholders as defined
by the forestry sector. It is
intended to continue promoting
this participation, strengthening
the existing inter-sector, and
governance entities’ dialogues,
such as the REDD+ Executive
Committee.
The recommendation is taken.
As soon as the data is obtained,
the reference level will be
produced and included.
The measures included in the
Program are policies, actions and
specific tasks derived from a
participative process with the
relevant stakeholders, especially
within the framework of the
Environmental and Social
Assessment of the information
and pre-consultation of the
79
Comment
policy 5 is the one that could
affect the sector the most.
Response
REDD+ National Strategy. From
the participation workshops, a
series of risks and opportunities
were identified, related to the 10
strategic options preliminarily
proposed at the Costa Rica’s RPP. This participation process
includes indigenous lands,
forestry producers, relevant
public entities and the private
sector.
With the risks and opportunities
identified, over 100 repetitive
topics were systematized in 27
common topics which were
broader and more integral25.
Subsequent to this, five strategic
axes were identified for the
attention of these risks and the
promotion of opportunities. From
that information, REDD+
Executive Secretariat proposed
six policies that cluster the groups
and risk and opportunities axes.
In addition to this, the Secretariat
included other specific actions
within the framework of the six
policies for emission reduction,
according to the country interests
as defined by the Ministry of the
Environment and Energy. It must
be noted that the REDD+
Executive Secretariat performed
a consistency analysis of the
strategic options initially
proposed at the R-PP, along with
the policies, actions and tasks
finally defined, and found full
compatibility between both.
25
There is a risks and opportunities matrix that allows observing the traceability of the risks, as identified by the
relevant stakeholders, up their systematization, clustering and conformation in policies, actions and tasks.
80
Comment
Response
Finally, the six policies defined
will be subject to the consultation
process.
The sector is invited to start a
dialogue in order to identify more
clarity in the language of policies,
actions and activities. However,
the Secretariat considers that the
policies respond completely to
the participation and consultation
processes that the Government of
Costa Rica has developed within
the framework of REDD+.
Indigenous populations
It is necessary to set a baseline
through regional practical models
for small producers. The
suggestion is to use the peasant
psa model as defined within the
REDD+ framework (meaning the
participation of the small
producer at the social level, and
his actual contribution to carbon
rupture).
El sector considers that the
Emission Reduction Program
document has a good technical
level; however, the background
section should be better balanced
to reflect the contribution of the
rural sector and civil society to the
achievements of the country in
reducing deforestation.
Within the framework of the
REDD+ preparation process, the
indigenous organizational
structure was promoted. It is
important to note that this sector
has actively participated in the
process by the development of
regional meetings to analyze the
documents. Notwithstanding
this, the sector needs to
consolidate the indigenous
The sector will continue to receive
support in order to refine the
Peasant PSA proposal.
Said section will be reviewed.
Work will continue in the
framework defined considering
culturally appropriate spaces and
reasonable times for feedback
and for the systematization of the
reports. The secretariat is making
progress in the systematization of
the resulting information of the
reports per territory.
81
Comment
territorial block in a language that
is culturally appropriate to
guarantee the input collected in
the field is duly entered in the
Strategy and of the Emission
Reduction Program documents.
It is important to clarify the
section of orienting principles,
since they mix-up with actions
and methodological guidelines.
One of these principles should be
oriented towards the respect of
indigenous populations’ rights.
The agreement entered with the
19 indigenous populations dated
September 10 and 12, 2012
should be remembered and
respected; said agreement
addressed the following: Implementation of the program
within the framework of
indigenous Payment for
Environmental Service. The
execution of at least 34.000
hectares in indigenous territories.
-This project will give priority to
the most deforested indigenous
lands.
It is necessary to clarify the way in
which the policies were defined,
taking the SESA as the base.
Additionally, there is a feeling
that the policies do not give
security to the consolidation of
safeguards demanded by
indigenous populations.
Response
It will be answered clarifying this
item.
It will be taken into account in its
due process, in the mechanism
for the distribution of benefits,
through the Indigenous PSA
proposal.
The SESA process included the
participation of the PIRs, with
which the most important
concerns were compiled; these
were entered into the existing
policies and actions, however it is
recognized that there might be
gaps and said concerns could be
satisfied during the consultation
process.
With respect to the safeguards, a
socialization and consultation
plan will be prepared about the
82
Comment
Response
MGAS in order to explain the
practical applicability on how this
instrument safeguards the Lands.
What relationship does the
Emission Reduction Program
have with C-Neutrality? How will
the topic of carbon rights for
indigenous lands be addressed? It
is necessary to identify the
implications that this topic has for
the indigenous populations and
the rights acquired by purchasers.
The indigenous sector stated its
concern that the REDD+
processes allow for developed
countries to continue polluting
the atmosphere.
The carbon rights issued is being
addressed within the national
legal framework in a way that it
corresponds to the requirements
of the different mechanisms in
which the country might decide
to participate. In this regards, the
specific safeguards to protect the
integrality of the Indigenous
Lands will be applied.
As this topic moves forward, the
indigenous institutions with
which the State is working will be
trained.
This is an important topic that is
being addressed within the
framework of the Framework
Convention on Climate Change.
83
6. Operational and Financial Planning
6.1. Institutional and implementation arrangements
Institutional arrangements for REDD+ implementation
The required institutional arrangements for operating the ER-P are based on the Organic Law of the
Environment, the Forestry Law, the Biodiversity Law and the Indigenous Law 26, per Section 4.5. Thus,
Costa Rica’s institutional and legal frameworks serve as the base for implementing the ER-P. In this way,
the ER-P’s arrangements are closely linked to the current legislation and the tasks mandated to the
different public entities. Table 6.1.1. show the main and associate implementers for each policy action
proposed.
All operating entities are part of the structure of the State Forestry Administration, and so are subject to
the direction of the Minister of MINAE. Additional arrangements may be required outside the existing
regulatory framework. For example, new operational procedures among SINAC, FONAFIFO and CENIGA
must be agreed, especially for MRV and to operate the SIS. Other sub-arrangements will be required with
public institutions, for example, with the Costa Rican Institute of Electricity (ICE), the National Institute of
Rural Development (INDER), as well with with other land-holders that are part of the State Natural
Heritage27 but have not formally registered their lands yet.
Organization for the day-to-day operation of the ER-P

The office of the Minister of MINAE is the political director of the ER-P,

FONAFIFO will be in charge of managing the ER-P administratively and financially 28

The implementation of policies, actions and activities will be jointly coordinated by SINAC, FONAFIFO
and CENIGA, according to their legal responsibilities. Each policy action has a leading implementation
entity (Table 6.1.1., based on Section 4.3.),

With regards to MRV, CENIGA under the supervision of the high-level committee (Section 1.3.), will
coordinate the follow-up of the reference level through the national land use/cover monitoring system
(Section 9),

Benefit sharing will be a responsibility of FONAFIFO, under the political direction of the Minister of
MINAE and under supervision of the high-level committee,

FONAFIFO will execute the Safeguards Plans and ensure complianc with the relevant World Bank’s
operational policies (Section 14),
26If
necessary, additional arrangements may be agreed with Indigenous Development Associations for Indigenous
Territories.
27 Article Nº15 of the Forestry Law determined that such lands must be immediately incorporated to the State Natural
Heritage.
28FONAFIFO has ample experience managing financial operations.,For example, Ecomercados I and II and the FCPF
readiness grant.
84

CENIGA will report how the Costa Rica addresses safeguards through the SIS,

FONAFIFO runs the Feedback and Grievance Redress Mechanism (FGRM) through its Comptroller of
Services,

FONAFIFO is in charge of coordinating the consultation and information exchange process with
stakeholders.
Other public entities/institutions will be involved in the implementation of specific policy actions, for
example, the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAG), ICE and the Port Administration Board of the
Atlantic Coast (JAPDEVA). These entities are part of the Environment Sector, according to a organization
decree issued by the Executive Branch of the Government, and as such they are subject to the political
direction of the Minister of MINAE. Moreover, these entities are subject to the political direction of the
Minister through the Environment Sector Council (visit here for a brief history of MINAE and its relation to
the Environment Sector Council).
85
Table 6.1.1. Main (IP) and associate implementers (IA) of specific activities. Table 4.3.1. showed policy actions; this table shows activites, a more detail level of
the ER-P operations.
IA
IP
1.1.2. Capacity building workshops
IA
IP
1.1.3. Assemble fire crews to control wildfires
IA
IP
1.1.4. Purchase of equipment and supplies
IA
IP
1.1.5. Improve control over critical forest areas (consider satellite technology)
IA
IP
1.1.6. Conduct awareness campaigns
IA
IP
1.1.7. Strenghen the role of SINAC’s regional offices in fire management
IA
IP
IA
IP
IA
IP
IA
IP
1.1.8. Strenghen institutional capacities (admin, human resources, financing, operational and
technological)
1.2.1. Implement the Illegal Logging Control Strategy
1.2.2 Reactivate the Natural Resources Watch Committees and the Volunteers Associations and
develop an action plan in coordination with SINAC
1.2.3. Build capacity in public officers at CIAgro, the Police, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Administrative
Environmental Court, the Environmental Comptroller, courts, MAG, MINAE, the members of the
Natural Resource Watch Committees and other organized groups
1.2.4. Execute additional law enforcement operations to reduce the illegal use, exploitation and
transportation of forest products
1.2.5. Design audit plans to guarantee transparency, fraud control and consistency of timber
harvesting permits issued for forest management by the State Forestry Management and CIAgro
1.2.6. Ensure additional financial resources to increase current accountability and control of measures
by SINAC and CIAgro, related to the implementation of forestry activities
1.2.7. Include additional mechanisms in the Grievance and Redress Mechanism for allowing citizens to
participate in the identification of illegal forestry
1.2.8. Develop monitoring programs with indigenous peoples and other communities with high forest
loss
1.2.9. Strengthen illegal logging control measures in Protected Conservation Areas and in the State
Natural Heritage
1.2.10. Increase the participation of Environmental Regional Councils, SINAC’s Regional and Local
IA
IP
IA
IP
IA
IP
IA
IP
IMN
1.1.1. Update the Illegal Logging Control and Forest Fires Management Strategies
CENIGA
ms)
ADI
ony
acr
MAG
of
on
DCC
niti
defi CONAGEBIO
for
w
RN-C
belo
SNIT
e
not
SINAC
(see
s
tion CIAGRO
titu
ONF
/ins
ties
Enti FONAFIFO
AFE
MINAE
Activities
IP
IP
IP
IP
86
IMN
CENIGA
ms)
ADI
ony
acr
MAG
of
on
DCC
niti
defi CONAGEBIO
for
w
RN-C
belo
SNIT
e
not
SINAC
(see
s
tion CIAGRO
titu
ONF
/ins
ties
Enti FONAFIFO
AFE
MINAE
Activities
Councils in the sustainable management of forest.
1.2.11. Improve institutional capacities (management, human resources, financial, operational and
technological) of SINAC and other entities related to logging control
1.2.12. Update regulations, operational and financial capacities to strenghen control measures by
CIAgro
1.2.13. Revise the comptroller role of SINAC and CIAGro in relation to indigenous territories
IP
IP
IA
1.2.14. Strengthen logging control by indigenous peoples through the Dualök Kimö program
IP
1.3.1. Design/adjust a national land use/cover monitoring system according to the methodological
requirements of REDD+ and in consistency with the national GHG inventory and any other specific
requirements defined by IMN
1.3.2. Define a MRV strategy consistent with the requirements of REDD+
1.3.3. Identify a financing and sustainability strategy to guarantee that the monitoring system (activity
1.3.1.) is able to regularly provide the information necessary for the REDD+ MRV
1.3.4. Identify any potential additional institutional arrangements required to implement the
monitoring system defined in activity 1.3.1.
1.3.5. Implement a community-based monitoring strategy in areas with critical deforestation or forest
degradation and that have high conservation value.
1.3.6. Develop a participative M&E mechanism with Indigenous Territories
1.3.7. Implement special C monitoring protocols for mixed lands (agriculture and forestry) and
consider MRV for existing AFOLU29 NAMAs
1.3.8. Implement special C monitoring protocols for urban forest C stocks and stock changes
(Settlements; S)
1.4.1. Update (and improve) the State Natural Heritage’s land inventory, especially for lands yet to be
registered by MINAE
1.4.2. Conduct a specific land-tenure analysis in the State Natural Heritage
1.4.3. Apply appropriate procedures for including public lands (pending formal registration) to the
State Natural Heritage
1.4.4. Perform a land use and land use potential analysis for the State Natural Heritage, in order to
define specific REDD+ goals
1.4.5. Develop management plans for lands in the State Natural Heritage, to increase REDD+ results,
29 AFOLU:
IP
IA
IA
IP
IA
IA
IP
IA
IA
IP
IA
IA
IP
IA
IP
IA
IP
IA
IP
IA
IA
IA
IA
IP
IP
IA
IP
IA
IA
IP
IA
IP
IA
IP
Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, as defined by the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for national GHG inventories.
87
IA
IP
IA
IA
IP
1.5.2. Update the Protected Areas Project (PAP) and develop an implementation and financing
strategy
1.5.3. Design and execute a long-term financing strategy for purchasing lands in Protected
Conservation Areas
1.5.4. Prioritize PSA payments in Protected Conservation Areas, and consider potential increases in
payments
1.5.5. Increase the designated amount from the national budget for purchasing lands in Protected
Conservation Areas
1.5.6. Promote the voluntary adherence to the state forest regime
IP
IA
IP
IA
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
1.5.7. Allocate REDD+ monetary benefits to purchase lands in Protected Conservation Areas
IP
1.5.8. Update management plans for Protected Conservation Areas to promote REDD+ activities
IP
1.6.1. Harmonize the National REDD+ Strategy, the National Biodiversity Strategy and the National
Action Plan to avoid Desertification and Drought
1.6.2. Harmonize the National REDD+ Strategy , the National Strategy on Climate Change and the
National Adaptation Plan
1.6.3. Integrate the National REDD+ Strategy and the planned framework for Sustainable
Development Goals.
1.6.4. Target REDD+ efforts in priority biodiversity conservation areas, watershed protection zones
and prioritiy land restoration areas, including the increase of restoration actions associated to
endangered species
1.6.5. Implement strategies to communicate the importance of forest and biodiversity conservation,
as well as other environmental services
1.6.6. Support the Sustainable Biodiversity Fund (FBS) with REDD+ resources
1.6.7. Develop an assessment of low- environmental impact practices available for biodiversity
conservation
1.6.8. Direct REDD+ investments in priority biological corridors
IP
IA
IP
IA
IA
IP
IA
IA
IP
IA
IP
IP
IA
IP
IA
IP
IA
88
IMN
IA
CENIGA
ms)
ADI
ony
acr
MAG
of
on
DCC
niti
defi CONAGEBIO
for
w
RN-C
belo
SNIT
e
not
SINAC
(see
s
tion CIAGRO
titu
ONF
/ins
ties
Enti FONAFIFO
1.4.7. Develop a resource management strategy for the full incorporation of lands to the State Natural
Heritage
1.4.8. Achieve consistency of delimitation and demarcation rules on areas under special land-tenure
regimes
1.5.1. Update the inventory of land under tenure by third parties in Protected Conservation Areas
AFE
through a variety of interventions, including the need of additional institutional arrangements
1.4.6. Secure funding for transferring lands to the State National Heritage.
MINAE
Activities
IA
IP
IP
IP
1.7.2. Analyze, review and adjust public policies and incentives to diminish deforestation and forest
degradation
1.7.3. Ensure consistency of forest-related policies with REDD+
IP
IP
IP
IA
IA
IA
IP
IA
IA
IP
IA
IA
IA
IA
IP
IP
IP
IA
IA
IP
IP
IP
IA
IA
IA
IP
89
IMN
CENIGA
IP
1.7.1. Regularly update the deforestation and forest degradation driver analysis
2.1.1. Update the National Forestry Development Plan with the participation of Indigenous
Territories, according to the principles of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)
2.1.2. Identify gaps between national and international legal regulations in regards to resource
management in Indigenous Territories
2.1.3. Adopt any appropriate modifications to the current National Forest Development Plan by
means of a decree or a specific legal amendment
2.2.1. Support conflict resolution mechanisms for areas where land-tenure is disputed and consider
the participation of the Ministry of Justice and Peace (MJP) and the Ombudsman Office, including the
development of protocols where relevant
2.2.2. Develop an alternative mechanism for settling land tenure disputes in indigenous territories and
small agroforestry producers in relation to REDD+
2.2.3. Improve and make widely available a mechanism to report disconformities by other public
institutions and communal territories, as well as provide additional opportunities for its periodical
assessment
2.3.1. Assess if limitations exists (legal, economic, technical, logistic) of small and medium
agroforestry producers in areas under special land tenure regimes for participating in REDD+
2.3.2. Develop studies and implement plans for producing additional economic and social benefits
through REDD+ or other policy actions for small and medium forestry producers
2.3.3 Develop a joint plan between MINAE, MAG and the private sector to inform, train, and assist
efforts by farmers and small agroforestry producers, including indigenous territories, for marketing
goods and services
3.1.1. Develop guidelines and implementation plans for those components of the National Forestry
Development Plan related to techonological and managerial capacities, especially those related to
timber industrualization
ms)
ADI
ony
acr
MAG
of
on
DCC
niti
defi CONAGEBIO
for
w
RN-C
belo
SNIT
e
not
SINAC
(see
s
tion CIAGRO
titu
ONF
/ins
ties
Enti FONAFIFO
1.6.9. Analyze SINAC’s and FONAFIFO’s operational efficiency to implement REDD+ and define first
steps for operation
1.6.10. Develop, jointly with relevant entities, monitoring mechanisms of social and environmental
impacts of REDD+ actions in priority areas
1.6.11. Harmonize the National REDD+ Strategy with the Rural Landscape Restoration Strategy
AFE
MINAE
Activities
IA
IA
IP
IA
IA
IP
IA
IA
IP
IA
IP
IA
IP
IA
IA
IP
IA
IA
IP
IA
IA
IA
IA
3.2.6. Improve outreach activities in MAG, CIAgro and MINAE to provide assistance to producers
IA
4.1.3. Contribute to the design of a culturally- appropriate mechanism for settling legal disputes
related to land tenure in indigenous territories; such mechanism will be designed in coordination with
IA
IP
IA
3.2.5. Develop good practice manuals for silvicultural production in collaboration with academia
IA
IP
IP
3.2.4. Strenghen regional and local organizations providers of genetically-improved trees
4.1.1. Contribute to the update of land-tenure studies in all indigenous territories in coordination with
the relevant government institutions
4.1.2. Support the development of a long-term plan for regularizing indigenous land rights
IP
IP
IA
IP
IA
IA
IP
IA
IP
IA
IA
IA
IP
IA
IP
IA
90
IMN
IA
CENIGA
ms)
ADI
ony
acr
MAG
of
on
DCC
niti
defi CONAGEBIO
for
w
RN-C
belo
SNIT
e
not
SINAC
(see
s
tion CIAGRO
titu
ONF
/ins
ties
Enti FONAFIFO
3.1.9. Assess legal and administrative options to use fallen timber in forests, including in Protected
Conservation Areas is adequate, mainly for increasing benefits for small organizations and forestry
producers
3.2.1. Develop a joint MAG-MINAE plan to build capacity of forestry producers on sustainable
management of forests, plantations and agriculture, including the reactivation of the ForestAgriculture Comission
3.2.2. Develop a system to award timber produced in sustainable ways and supported with PSA
payemnts
3.2.3. Promote low-cost certification systems for forestry producers
AFE
3.1.2. Update studies, start dialogues and capacity building processes to address current
competitiveness weaknesses in the forestry sector across the production chain, and propose solutions
3.1.3. Conduct studies and implement strategies to identify markets for national and international
timber and non-timber forest products and identify sources of financing for starting business models
3.1.4. Strenghen the participation of research and academic centers to update knowledge on
potential improvements to management, silviculture and genetic management of tree species
3.1.5. Document successful experiences in silvicultural mangament by region, species, for tree
plantations, forest management and agroforesrty systems
3.1.6. Promote a dialogue with relevant stakeholders on the lessons learned in silvicultural
management
3.1.7. Foster exchanges between farmers and indigenous territories on forest and agroforestry system
management
3.1.8. Design quality indicators for forest management and for evaluating PSA reforestation
MINAE
Activities
the Ombudsman Office, the Ministry of Justice and Peace and the Ministry of the Presidency
4.1.4. Determine the status of rights to emission reductions and potential mechanisms for their
transfer to the FCFP Carbon Fund
4.1.5. Support the design of a legal and cadastral assistance mechanism for indigenous territories,
with the goal to help clarify land-tenure rights
4.2.1. Contribute in the assessment of land-tenure in every area under special land-tenure regimes
(with the exception of indigenous territories
4.2.2. Support the development of a long-term plan for clarifying land-tenure rights in areas under
special land-tenure regimes
4.2.3. Contribute to the design of a mechanism for settling legal disputes related to land tenure for
areas under special land-tenure regimes (excluding indigenous territories); such mechanism will be
designed in coordination with the Ombudsman Office, the Ministry of Justice and Peace and the
Ministry of the Presidency
4.2.4. Determine the status of rights to emission reductions and potential mechanisms for their
transfer to the FCFP Carbon Fund
4.2.5. Support the design of a legal and cadastral assistance mechanism for areas under special landtenure regimes, with the goal to help clarify land-tenure rights
4.3.1. Develop a registry of public lands elegible for REDD+ implementation
4.3.2. Assess public land-tenure regimes and determine institutional arrangements for the
transferring emission reductions rights to the FCPF Carbon Fund
4.4.1. Review current legislation to identify potential contradictory provisions on border delimitation
in areas under special land-tenure regimes.
4.4.2. Propose legal and/or regulatory amendments to fix potential delimitation issues in conflict
zones
5.1.1. Prioritize Costa Rica’s territory according to its potential for REDD+, considering all REDD+
activities
5.1.2. Harmonize criteria between the National Forestry Development Plan and the FBS for
guaranteeing legal and political security to citizens when investing in REDD+
5.1.3. Develop public policy to add value to forests and forestry production to reduce pressure for land
use change
5.1.4. Identify high REDD+ social and environmental co-benefits areas to prioritize investments
5.1.5. Expand PSA payments to other environmentalservices currently not defined in the Forestry
Law, but with legal basis in other regulatory bodies (through a legislative or regulatory review).
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IA
IA
IP
IA
IA
IP
IA
IA
IP
IA
IA
IP
IP
IA
IA
IP
IA
IP
IA
IA
IA
IA
IP
91
IMN
CENIGA
ms)
ADI
ony
acr
MAG
of
on
DCC
niti
defi CONAGEBIO
for
w
RN-C
belo
SNIT
e
not
SINAC
(see
s
tion CIAGRO
titu
ONF
/ins
ties
Enti FONAFIFO
AFE
MINAE
Activities
IMN
IP
IP
IA
IP
IP
IP
5.2.5. Design and test a mechanism for the integral management of agroforestry farms, by combining
forest-related environmental services and agroecosystem services, with social benefits (i.e. a new
PSA modality).
5.2.6. Design and test a culturally appropriate forestry management and financing mechanism for
indigenous territories (i.e. new PSA modality).
5.2.7. Develop a capacity building program for farmers, agroforestry producers and indigenous
peoples to improve knowledge on how to access benefits from these new financing mechanisms (see
activity 5.2.5 and 5.2.6.)
5.2.8. Explore further options to prioritize PSA allocation to indigenous territories
IP
IA
IP
IP
IP
5.3.2. Identify ways for the Domestic Carbon Market (DMC) to finance REDD+ activities
6.1.3. Develop a plan to integrate the SIS to the National Environmental Information System (SINIA)
and determine if further arrangements are required for generating regular information
6.1.4 Share the design, results and reports derived from the SIS, including a Results and Reports
Sharing Mechanism
CENIGA
IP
5.2.4. Design innovative financing modalities, develop pilot applications and assess results
5.3.4. Develop a long-term financing strategy for the full implementation of the National REDD+
Strategy
5.3.5. Operate and regularly assess the performance of the Benefit Sharing Mechanism (BSM) with
participation of relevant stakeholders
6.1.1. Define a Safeguards Information System (SIS) to comply with REDD+’s safeguards under the
UNFCCC and other applicable safeguards (i.e. World Bank and other implementation partners)
6.1.2. Clarify the variables, criteria and indicators of the SIS and a format for reporting to the UNFCCC
ms)
ADI
ony
acr
MAG
of
on
DCC
niti
defi CONAGEBIO
for
w
RN-C
belo
SNIT
e
not
SINAC
(see
s
tion CIAGRO
titu
ONF
/ins
ties
Enti FONAFIFO
5.1.6. Conduct information campaigns on the importance of PSA, REDD+,, the social and
environmental benefits of sutainably managing forests, and the promotion of tree plantations and
forest conservation.
5.1.7. Explore opportunities to expand PSA payments to other activities and consider increases in
current payments per activity
5.2.1. Identify options to broaden the scope of the PSA to allow coexistence of productive activities,
agricultural and forest conservation.
5.2.2. Identify legal, technical and operational restrictions to expand PSA and implement measures to
allow for expansion.
5.2.3. Identify additional sources of finance beyond PSA
AFE
MINAE
Activities
IA
IA
IA
IA
IP
IP
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IP
IA
IP
IA
IA
IP
IA
IA
IP
IA
IA
IP
IA
92
IA
IP
IA
6.1.6. Prepare regular SIS reports consistent with national and international requirements
IA
IP
IA
6.2.1. Share with stakeholders and formally recognize (make official) the Social and Environmental
Management Framework (ESMF) of the National REDD+ Strategy
6.2.2. Inform and build capacity in civil society and public officers involved in the operation of the
FGRM
6.2.3. Implement and assess on a annual basis, with participation of the relevant stakeholders, the
results of the ESMF and the FGRM
6.2.4. Develop a dialogue and systematic communication platform with relevant stakeholders.
6.3.1. Achieve consistency between REDD+ MRV and the National MRV Framework for informing the
COP on Costa Rica’s progress towards achieving the ultimate goal of the UNFCCC
6.4.1. Develop a strategy to further consider gender, and cultural diversity in REDD+, based on
available preliminary studies
6.4.2. Develop information, training, outreach and obtain financing to promote the participation of
women in REDD+
IMN
6.1.5. Build capacity to ensure the timely generation of information as part of the SIS
CENIGA
ms)
ADI
ony
acr
MAG
of
on
DCC
niti
defi CONAGEBIO
for
w
RN-C
belo
SNIT
e
not
SINAC
(see
s
tion CIAGRO
titu
ONF
/ins
ties
Enti FONAFIFO
AFE
MINAE
Activities
IP
IP
IP
IP
IA
IA
IP
IP
IP
Entities/institutions: MINAE: Ministry of Environment and Energy, SINAC: National System of Conservation Areas, AFE: State Forestry Administration, FONAFIFO: National
Fund for Forestry Financing, CENIGA: National Center for Geo-Environmental Information, IMN: National Meteorological Institute, ONF: National Forestry Office, CIAgro:
Agronomists Association, SNIT: National System of Territorial Information, RN-C: National Registrar – Cadastral Office, CONAGEBIO: National Committee for Biodiversity
Management, DCC: Climate Change Direction, MAG: Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, ADI: Indigenous Development Associations.
93
Institutional capacity for the implementation of the Program
Operational arrangements of the ER-P are based on current legislation, including specific tasks and
capacities of the existing institutions. According to Section 1.3., institutions in charge of managing and
implementing the ER-P have demonstrable technical, political and managerial capacities. For instance,
MINAE is political director of the forestry sector. FONAFIFO executes the PSA since 1997. SINAC has
regional offices across the country and run numerous programs for the management of forest resources
and emission reductions (i.e. illegal clearing and forest fire management).
The government’s legal ability to sign an ERPA is explained in Section 1.3. and 4.5. Institutions such as
FONAFIFO have institutional capacity to sign contracts with land-owners and market environmental
services, i.e. PSA is a benefit sharing mechanism and has been operating since 1997. Particularly for the ERP, MINAE provides political direction, as well as technical, administrative and financial management
capacities for benefit sharing.
The reference level was defined by FONAFIFO during the REDD+ readiness phase. SINAC has
demonstrated ability to implement a national forest inventory (NFI). FONAFIFO runs a Service Comptroller
and so is able to manage the FGRM, as well as follow-up on Safeguards Plans and the ongoing National
REDD+ Consultation process.
Relationship of the national implementation framework for REDD+ with the implementation
framework for the ER-P
The National REDD+ Strategy is implemented through the ER-P, so the implementation framework is the
same. Both are based on the Environment Organic Law, the Forestry Law, the Biodiversity Law and the
Indigenous Law, as well as relevant international legislation for REDD+. All REDD+ related emission
reductions will be produced under the ER-P. The ER-P may go beyond the ERPA term and future
innovations to the REDD+ Strategy will be consistent to the currently proposed REDD+ policy and program
framework.
6.2. ER Program budget
The ER-P budget was prepared in collaboration with relevant government institutions, such as FONAFIFO,
IMN, SINAC and MAG. Most ER-P finance comes from PSA and SINAC’s forestry programs. Two workshops
were held (May and September 2015) to analyze the required methods and data to develop a REDD+
financing plan.
The selected methodology considers all costs and income sources, and identifies necessary financial
resources for implementing the ER-P30. The financial planning was focused on the REDD+ policy framework
presented in the ER-P (Section 4.3.)31. Each policy action was classified according to: i) Direct or indirect
impact on emission reductions, ii) Land-tenure regime,, iii) Whether the action is new, iv) Budget origin, v)
Main implementer, vi) Financing planning level.
There are four financing planning levels:
30Terra
Global Capital: Description and Process of the Planning Financing Program for Emission Reduction (ER) in Costa
Rica. June 2, 2015
31Policies in the EN-REDD+ CR, V4 SEPT 24.
94

Level 1-REDD+ Program Administration: additional budget expenses of institutions managing the ER-P

Level 2-REDD+ National Policies: transaction costs to implement new policies

Level 3- REDD+ Sub-programs: costs to run program actions for implemeting (new) policies. These are
not administrative costs, but refer to direct investments such as training, technical assistance,
infrastructure , direct payments or others

Level 4-REDD+ Activities: costs associated to the individual REDD+ activities to reduce emissions or
enhance carbon stocks, including REDD+ activities promoted by REDD+ Sub-programs (Level 3)
Annex 1 includes a table with Financial Projections for the ER-P (period 2010-2025) which includes: i)
sellable emission reductions by year, ii) total ER-P costs, iii) source of income, (mainly, FONAFIFO’s PSA
and and SINAC’s forestry programs and; iv) an estimated price per t of CO2-e ,.
At this stage of financial planning, it is assumed that the main implementers are FONAFIFO and SINAC.
Thus, only their budgets were analyzed. The goal of the financial planning process is to determine the cost
of reducing emissions for 2010-2015. . Annex 1 is based on the methods described here.
Financial Projections may be subject to review and modification by Costa Rica at any time.
95
7. Carbon pools, sources and sinks
7.1. Description of Sources and Sinks selected
Sources/Sinks
Included?
Emissions
from
deforestation
Yes
Justification / Explanation
Emissions from anthropogenic deforestation are a significant source 32 of
GHG emissions; this source is included in the reference level.
For the 1996-2009 period, average annual emissions from anthropogenic
deforestation is 7,217,881 t CO2-e yr-1 (98.36% of the de total emissions
from deforestation) and is comprised of:

Emissions from anthropogenic deforestation of primary forests 33 :
5.293,057 t CO2-e yr-1 (72,13%)

Emissions from anthropogenic deforestation of new forests 34 :
1,924,824 t CO2-e yr-1 (26.23%)
Emissions associated to non-anthropogenic forest loss (120,282 t CO2-e yr1
, 1,64%) are excluded because they are associated to the impact of
volcanic activity and to the natural variation of river courses and other
natural water bodies in areas with forest cover. Of these emissions, 87,824
t CO2-e year-1 (1,20%) correspond to non-anthropogenic loss of primary
forest and 32.458 tCO2-e year-1 (0,44%) to loss of non-anthropogenic loss
of new forests. Emissions from non-anthropogenic forest loss are excluded
from the reference level. Non-anthropogenic emissions will be consistently
measured and transparently reported in future monitoring events.
Note: Non-anthropogenic emissions were excluded because future natural
disturbance events may present an important risk, especially given Costa
Rica’s geograhical location and its vulnerability to stand-replacing
disturbances such as volcanic activity, landslides and flooding.
Emissions
from forest
degradation
No
Emissions from forest degradation are excluded due to the lack of reliable
data and methods. However, Costa Rica has proxy-derived indications
suggesting that forest degradation could be a significant source of
emissions. Nonetheless, the 2012 national GHG inventory determined that
32
According to indicator 3.3 of the Methodological Framework of the World Bank’s Carbon Fund, “significant” is defined
as >= 10% of the total emissions related to forests in the accounting area for the historical reference period and during
the term of the Emission Reduction Payment Agreement.
33Forthe construction of the reference level of emissions and forest absorptions and for future measurement, report and
verification of emissions and absorptions associated to forests, “primary forests” are defined as all the forests that were
not “new forests” by 1986 (see next footnote for the definition of “new forests”).
34Within the context of the reference level and the future measurement, report and verification, “new forests” are the
secondary forests and forestry plantations. Secondary forests are natural forests that grow in lands that in the past
were not classified as forest lands.
96
Sources/Sinks
Included?
forest land remaining forest land (FLFL) is a net sink which absorbed
7.438.500 t CO2-e in 2012.
According to a pilot study conducted in 2014, proxy data may suggest that
emissions from forest degradation may be higher than previously thought,
(although they are not greater than removals). This was determined by an
assessment of canopy cover change in FLFL (primary forest only) between
years 2001 y 201335. Results showed that 1,322,217.00 hectares of forest
presented a “stable” canopy cover (no gains or losses recorded), while in
398,747.97 hectares canopy cover was reduced and in 494,578.26 hectares
it actually increased. Thus, canopy cover increases are 24% greater than
canopy cover losses at the national level.
This assessment is based on proxy data and does not consider carbon stock
changes (CSC) in terms of t Co2-e yr-1. However, CID 2015.c36 includes a
first approximation. According to these results, forest degradation should
be addressed in future MRV to avoid underestimating emissions in FLFL.
Costa Rica acknowledges that forest degradation could be a significant
source of GHG emissions. However, neither methods nor data are yet
available to fully understand emissions in FLFL. This poses significant
technological and methodological challenges that must be addressed as
part of the planned improvements for the national land use/cover
monitoring system (Section 9).
Noting paragraph 10 of Decision 12/CP.17, Costa Rica will implement a
step-wise approach for improving its reference level and MRV by
incorporating better methods and data, considering adequate and
predictable support as mentioned in paragraph 71 of Decision 1/CP.16.
Therefore, Costa Rica excludes emissions for forest degradation from the
ER-P, until better methods and data are available. If methods and data are
improved, the reference level may be recalculated. However, until this is
done, Costa Rica proposes to repeat the assessment methodology every 4
years (every second Biennial Update Report or BUR) to ensure emissions
(using proxy data) from FLFL are not significantly increasing during the
35
The pilot assessment was developed for the Government of Costa Rica by Agresta et al. (2015.b) for yrs 2000 and
2012. According to the rules used to define the map dates (explained in section 8.3 of the ERPD), the map which
Agresta et al.calls 2000 corresponds in reality to yr 20o1, while the map for 2012 does correspond for yr 2012. In order
to assess the canopy cover percentage of primary forests, the map of canopy cover percentage for yr 2000 (in reality
2001) was intersected with the land-cover map for 2001. For yr 2013, since there was no map on land-cover for 2012,
the estimate of primary forest canopy cover was estimated by crossing the map of canopy covers for 2012 with the
land-cover map for 2013.
36 The methodology and the results of the significance analyses are presented in: CDI, 2015.c. Analysis of the
significance of carbon stocks in forests that remained as forests. Report on the consultancy prepared for the
Government under the Carbon Fund of the Forest Carbon Partnership (FCPF). 12 p.
97
Sources/Sinks
Included?
term of the ERPA.
Enhancement
of forest C
stocks
Yes
Removals in FLFL (primary forests) are not included as part of the C
accounting framework due to lack of reliable data and to keep consistency
with the exclusion of emissions in FLFL (forest degradation).
Removals in land converted to FL (new forests) are a significant sink (4.422,008 tCO2-e yr-1 between 1996 and 2009). This sink is expected to
remain significant during the ERPA term, given that at the beginning of
the ER-P (2010) there were 810.671 hectares (36,17% of the total forest
areas) of new growing forests and that in average, between 1996 and
2009, a total 27.707 hectares of new forests were regenerated every year.
C stock changes per hectare in new forests are estimated using biomass
accumulation curves, calibrated with in situ field data according to
Cifuentes (2008).
Conservation
of forest C
stocks
Yes
(but not
in the
reference
level)
It is included in the ER-P, but not in the reference level. This sink refers to
all existing C stocks in FLFL (primary forests) since 1986. Costa Rica is not
seeking results-based payments for this activity from the FCPF Carbon
Fund. It is included in the ER-P, as the ER-P is the implementation
framework for the National REDD+ Strategy, and therefore, it includes all
REDD+ activities.
This activity is not part of the reference level, but is reported biennially.
The goal is to quantify the effort made by the country in mantaining
existing forests. For this reason, MRV results should be understood as:
Xi...jtCO2-e yr-1 , Yi...jtCO2-e
where:


Sustainable
management
of forests
No
X: Net emissions reductions for years i...j
Y: Conserved C stocks for years i...j
Emissions/removals associated to forest management are excluded due to
the lack of reliable data. Furthermore, the total area under forest
management in Costa Rica is very small (<500 ha yr-1). Additionally,
silvicultural practices are not stand-replacing, but remove small timber
volumes every 15 years. For these reasons, it is considered plausible that
emissions/removals may not be significant. As part of the concluding
readiness activities, Costa Rica will collect better information to eventually
be able to estimate these emissions/removals, given its goal to increase
forest management and harvested wood produts (HWP) as part its
98
Sources/Sinks
Included?
National REDD+ Strategy (Section 4.3.).
7.2. Description of Carbon pools and GHGes selected
Carbon stocks
Above-ground
biomass (AGB)
Below-ground
biomass (BGB)
Litter
Selected?
Yes
AGB contains the highest proportion of C stored in forests (between
50-79% of the total estimated C per ha). Hence, AGB is included in the
ER-P’s C accounting framework.
AGB was estimated by using preliminary data37 of the National Forest
Inventory (NFI) and other data sources obtained from scientific
literature relevant to Costa Rica.
Yes
BGB represents between 12-21% of total C stocks per ha. BGB C is
included in the C accounting framework.
BGB C stocks were estimated from the AGB by using the Cairns et al.
equation (1997)38, which is consistent the national GHG inventory.
Yes
Even though litter represents <10% of emissions from deforestation
(and <10% of total C stocks ), it was included in the estimation of C
stock changes, because there are high quality Tier 2 data for its
estimation.
Most litter data come from relevant and nationally derived scientific
literature.
Deadwood
Soil C
Yes
Even though it only contributes to <10% of emissions from
deforestation, deadwood was included in the estimation of emission
factors because there are Tier 2 national data available for its
estimation.
No
Soil C was excluded from the C accounting framework due to lack of
reliable national data to estimate the exchange rates of C in the
different land use change transitions. It is assumed that during the
term of ERPA (15 years), C stock changes would not result in
significant emissions. On the contrary, considering that lands
converted to FL are greated than deforested areas, it is possible that
soil C is a net sink in Costa Rica. However, it is acknowledged that
better national data is required for the estimation of soil C stocks
37
“Preliminary” because during the months in which the reference level was built the final results of the National Forest
Inventory were not yet available and the database facilitated by the Conservation Areas National System was still
undergoing revision.
38Cairns, M. a., S. Brown, E. H. Helmer, G. A. Baumgardner, 1997. Root biomass allocation in the world’s upland forests.
Oecologia 111:1-11.
99
changes.
The exclusion of soil C may generate conservative emission factor
estimates, with the likely exception of wetlands and FL with high
water tables and soil C contents. This might be the case of palm
forests (yolillales), but the anthropogenic deforestation in this forest
type represented 5,18 % (1,603.82 ha year-1) of the total anthropogenic
deforestation. Another example is mangroves, but deforestation in
this forest type was 1,00% (310.04 ha year-1) of the total deforestation.
GHG
CO2
CH4
Selected?
Yes
Yes
Carbon dioxide is the main gas emitted by anthropogenic activities in
the LULUCF sector; CO2 is the only gas absorbed when forest C stocks
are enhanced.
Considering that slash-and-burn is the most accessible technology to
convert forests, methane was considered to account for non-CO2
emissions associated to biomass burning (FL converted to other land
use categories).
Expert judgement was used to estimate the percentage of C stocks
that were burned. Such estimates vary with time as this practice has
considerably decreased in Costa Rica following the promulgation of
the Forestry Law in 1996.
N2O
Yes
Same as for methane.
100
8. Reference level
The reference level presented to the FCPF Carbon Fund is preliminary. Costa Rica may modify it to keep
consistency with the 2012 national GHG inventory included in Costa Rica’s first Biennial Update Report
(BUR). The 2012 national GHG inventory was presented at COP21 in Paris. Costa Rica will ensure proper
alignment with the reference level by January 4th (due date for the submission of the forest reference
emission level/forest reference level [FREL/FRL] to the UNFCCC Secretariat for technical assessment).
Hence, by this date, Costa Rica will:

Submit a REDD+ FREL/FRL to the UNFCCC Secretariat,

Update Sections 8 and 13 of the ERPD to reflect changes in the reference level included in the ER-P to
the FCPF Carbon Fund (the relationship between the FREL/FRL and the reference level included in the
ERPD is discussed in Section 8.6).
8.1. Reference Period (preliminary).
Start and End Dates of the reference period
01.01.1996 - 12.31.2009 (14 years).
Rationale of the historical reference period
Base year (1996): 1996 is the year when the Forestry Law was passed including its instruments and
mechanisms (e.g. PSA). Considering 1996 as the base year would imply a historical period not longer than
15 years per indicator 11.1 of the Carbon Fund methodological framework. Starting the historical reference
period at 1996 allows for the consideration of emissions and removals that have resulted from the
implementation of the current Forest Law. Because of this, it can be used to measure emission reductions
that are “additional” to the normal performance of current forest policies and programs. This date was
strategically selected to show the impact of the Forestry Law, and has an important role in the FREL/FRL to
be submitted to the UNFCCC. Costa Rica believes this is sufficient and convincing justification for selecting
the base year, as it related to a key national circumstance.
End year (2009): according to Costa Rica’s R-PP and ER-PIN39, the country’s National REDD+ Strategy
began in 2010. Moreover, this date is close to July 03, 200840, in which Law No. 8640 of Ecomercados II was
passed. This Law increased PSA financial resources in $30 million and directed a $10 million donation to
create a heritage fund for the protection of biodiversity (FBS). Hence, an important step was taken to
increase ambition in compensating environmental services, including GHG mitigation.
Additionally, during years 2009-2010, following a mandate from the General Comptroller Office of the
Republic, the National Forestry Development Plan was updated for the period 2011-2020, which included
39 Approved
by the Carbon Fund in its resolution CFM/5/2012/1, which acknowledged the high quality of the ER-PIN
(para. 1) and granted additional financing to move towards the ER-P (para. 2 and 3). In addition, the annex of the
resolution identified key issues, these do not include an objection to the start of the National REDD+ Strategy or the
ER-P in 2010.
40 Year 2010 is also defined as the end year considering that between the Law approval by the Legislative Assembly in
2008 and its full implementation in 2010 it was necessary to complete operational and financial procedures to execute
disbursements by the World Bank. Administrative measures also took additional time, for example, the incorporation
of financial to the annual budget, the implementation of adjustments to the Procedural Manual on the PSA reviewed on
an annually basis.
101
specific REDD+ and GHG mitigation objectives in its forest policies . The plan also includes a reference to
the FCPF and the readiness activities that Costa Rica should undertake.
It is also very important to note that the ongoing information, pre-consultation and consultation processes
with stakeholders are based on the start of REDD+ implementation in 2010, with the goal of increasing
ambition over time.
8.2. Forest definition used in the construction of the Reference Level
Forest definition
The definition used for the reference level is:

Minimum area: 1,00 ha

Minimum forest canopy cover: 30%

Minimum height of trees: 5,00 m
This is consistent with Costa Rica’s definition submitted to the UNFCCC’s Clean Development Mechanism
(CDM) and is also consistent with the national GHG national inventory . However, it is not consistent with
the definition of forest reported in the FAO’s Forest Resources Assessment (FRA). Under FAO-FRA, Costa
Rica defines forest as:



Minimum height of trees: 5,00 m
Additionally, article 3 of Costa Rica’s Forestry Law 7575 defines “forest” as a “Native or indigenous
ecosystem, intervened or not, regenerated by natural succession or other forestry techniques that occupies
a surface of two or more hectares, characterized by the presence of mature trees of different ages, species
and appearance, with one or more canopies covering over seventy percent (70%) this area and with more
than sixty trees per hectare of fifteen or more centimeters diameter measured at chest height (DAP)”. This
definition translates to:



Minimum height of trees: N/A

Minimum number of trees: 60/ha (with at least 15 cm at breast height)
However, this is only applicable for internal purposes and for activities regulated by national legislation. For
complying with COP decisions for REDD+, Costa Rica employs a broader definition as explained above
(which largely includes the forest definition by law).
The definition of forest depends on parameters that are measured in very different ways (i.e. tree height or
percent canopy cover are not measured with LANDSAT imagery), however the minimum area is readily
102
estimated using appropriate satellite imagery. For this reason, when defining forest for the historical
reference period, more importance was given to the minimum area parameter. It was assumed that if the
minimum area was large enough for a land unit to be defined as forest land, then it is very likely that the
percent canopy cover and tree height were also within the range defined as forest, given Costa Rica’s
vegetation and forest types. Nonetheless, a test was carried our to determine how well the remote sensing
analysis did in determining forest lands. This was done because in the processing and classification of
spectral data, it is likely that a proportion of the areas that are classified as “forest” actually present a lower
canopy cover and average tree height. Inconsistencies in the area classified as “forest” and the definition of
“forest” are almost never reported, but are unavoidable when land-cover maps are produced from remote
sensing images. These inconsistencies contribute to overall uncertainty of activity data (AD).
For the test, percent canopy cover of the areas classified as “forest” and of the areas classified as “nonforest” (according to the minimum area criteria) was estimated by using two canopy density maps prepared
by an independent study41 for years 2001 and 2012. The result of this assessment revealed that in 2001
92,36% of the primary forests and 79,03% of new forests had over 30% of canopy cover, while for 2012 the
result was 93,45% and 79,33% respectively. Results for “non-forest” areas showed lower consistency,
53,31% of the areas classified as “non-forest” in 2001 had less than 30% of canopy cover while for 2012 the
percentage was 56,61%. This could be explained by the presence of wooded pastures and agroforestry
systems in Costa Rica which are often classified as forest from remote sensing data.
Definition of REDD+ activities
Although there are many definitions for “forestation” (A – “Afforestation”), “reforestation” (R –
Reforestation”) and “deforestation” (D – “Deforestation”), collectively “ARD” and “forest management”
(FM – “Forest Management”) applicable to Annex 1 countries in the context of the Kyoto Protocol, the COP
has not decided on definitions regarding REDD+ activities, which can lead to different interpretations.
On the other hand, the Carbon Fund Methodological Framework (CF-MF), does not provide additional
elements to define REDD+ activities in a way that these activities may be identified in space and time, into
the C accounting framework.
In the absence of mandated definitions by the COP regarding REDD+ activities, and considering the CF-MF,
Costa Rica defined REDD+ activities based on AD classes42. Namely, when determining AD from a land use
change matrix, each cell is assigned a REDD+ activity (Figure 8.3.1.). A requirement for a REDD+ activity to
be assigned to a cell is that changes in forest C stocks must occur. For example, biomass burning in FLFL or
removals in land converted to FL. This consideration is consistent with REDD+ decisions by the COP, which
consistently use the language “forest carbon stocks”.
41Agresta,
Dimap, University of Costa Rica, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 2015. b. Index of cover as base for the
estimate of degradation and increase of carbon stocks: Generating a consistent historical time series of activity data
from land use change for the development of Costa Rica’s REDD plus reference level. Consultancy report prepared for
the Government of Costa Rica under the Carbon Fund of Forest Carbon Partnership (FCPF). 18 p.
42 This approach is similar to what IPCC suggests for relating land use categories and the activities under the Kyoto
Protocol (see Table 2.1 of IPCC 2013, Chapter 2. Section 2.1, p. 2.12). For Costa Rica’s case, all REDD+ activities were
assigned to the land use change matrix (Figure 8.3.1.). More detail is presented in the FREL TOOL CR v.1 tool in the
“Activities” worksheet.
103
8.3. Average annual historical emissions over the Reference Period
Description of method used for calculating the average annual historical emissions over the
historical reference period
Consistency with the national GHG inventory and application of the most recent IPCC guidelines
The methods used to estimate the average annual historical emissions and to construct the reference level
are fully described in a separate report (available here)43. The methods used were discussed and agreed
with the IMN experts, in order to ensure maximum consistency between the reference level and the
national GHG inventory. In both cases, the 2006 IPCC guidelines were adopted, employing as much as
possible the methods corresponding to Tier 2 or higher. However, it is important to consider the opening
statement in Section 8 of the ERPD, which explained that the reference level presented here is preliminary
and will be adjusted according to the 2012 national GHG inventory included in Costa Rica’s first BUR to be
presented at COP21 in Paris. This section will be updated accordingly.
Transparent, complete, consistent and accurate information
Several decisions of the COP refer to the need that emissions and absorptions estimates for sources and
sinks, within the context of the construction of reference levels and of national GHG inventories should be
transparent, complete, comparable, consistent and accurate. For Costa Rica’s ER-P reference level, this was
interpreted as follows:

Transparency: all information used in the construction of the reference level is explained in CDI, 2015.b.
This includes methods, data and assumptions. If additional information is required, it can be requested
to Costa Rica’s REDD+ Secretariat44. All calculations steps are explicit in the MS Excel-based FREL
TOOL CR v.1

Completeness: significant GHG sources and sinks, C pools and gases were included in the C Accounting
Framework and are reported and included in the reference level. Soil C was not included due to lack of
data. C stock changes in FLFL are not estimated for primary forests. C losses are not reported for new
forests (-->FL). C fluxes are not estimated for areas under forest management or tree plantations due
to data unavailability. Non-CO2 gases were not estimated for biomass burning in FLFL.

Consistency: methodologies for estimating emissions and absorptions were the same for 1986-2013
and will be the same for future measurement and reporting periods. This means that C stock changes
are not due to changes in methodologies. For example, for AD a 27-year time series with 7 points in
time was developed following the same procedures. EFs were kept constante during the historical
reference period, except for N2O and CH4 which were adjusted for >1996, based on expert judgement.

Accuracy: Uncertainties associated to AD, EF and emissions and absorptions were estimated following
2006 IPCC Guidelines. Secion 9 presents planned improvements for MRV, aimed at improving accuracy
over time.
43
CDI, 2015.b. Forest emission and removal reference level for Costa Rica and methodology used to construct it.
Consultancy report prepared for the Government of Costa Rica under the Carbon Fund for the Forest Carbon
Partnership (FCPF). 223 p.
44 Contact Alexandra Sáenz ([email protected])
104
Method for estimating AD
AD were estimated following Approach 3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Chapter 3, section 3.3.1, p.3.13 and
Annex 3.A.4, p.3.35). Firstly, land-cover maps with the six IPCC land use categories (and several subcategories, as explained later) were developed for years 1985/86, 1991/92, 1997/98, 2001/02, 2008/09,
2011/12 and 2012/1345 and were compared in a geographical information system to detect changes in time.
Multi-annual land use changes are reported in hectares for each historical period analyzed (19861991,1992-1997,1998-2001,2002-2008,2009-2011,2012-2013) as MS Excel sheets in the FREL TOOL CR v.1.
Considering that these matrixes are very large (due to the number of land use categories and subcategories) it is not possible to present them in the ERPD. The general structure of the matrixes is shown in
Figure 8.3.1. Annual AD are estimated by interpolating multi-annual matrixes. The results of these
interpolations are shown the annual matrixes in the “FREL TOOL CR v.1. AD for harvested wood products
(HWP) and for the emission of non-CO2 gases from AGB burning are explained in a later section.
Method for estimating EF
Each cell of the annual land use change matrixes was assigned an EF, estimated as the difference between
C stocks per hectare before (i) and after (f) conversion or due to changes in age classes in FLFL (new forests;
assuming that C is continously sequestered in aging forests). Thus,
𝐸𝐹𝑖→𝑓,𝑡 = 𝐶𝑖,𝑡 − 𝐶𝑓,𝑡
(1)
Where:
EFi→f,t EF for category change if at time t, in tCO2-e ha-1.
Ci,t
C stocks per hectare for land use category i at time t, in t CO2-e ha-1
Cf,t
C sotcks per hectare for land use category f at time t, in t CO2-e ha-1
Note that in the case of FLFL, the category before and after conversion is the same, hence i=f. However, for
-->FL, C stocks increase with time. EF are reported for all possible conversions in correspondence to the
annual land use change matrixes available in the FREL TOOL CR v.1.
Method for estimating emissions and absorptions (removals)
Annual emissions and absorptions were estimated in t CO2-e for 1986-2013. As shown in the following
equation, emissions and absorptions were estimated as the product of the annual AD (ADi) and its
associated emission factors (EFi,t). These calculations may be reviewed in the sheets “E AAAA” in the FREL
TOOL CR v.1.:
Et   DAi,t  FE i,t 
I
(2)
i 1
Where:
Et
Emissions or absorptions related to a REDD+ activity in year t; in t CO2-e year-1
45Notations 1985/86,…,
2002/13 to indicate the date in a land-cover map are used to indicate the maps corresponding to
the situation in the lands as of December 31 of the first yr mentioned and as of January 01 of the second yr entered in
the notation.
105
ADi,t
Activity data in sub-category i of category LU in year t related to a REDD+ activity (for instance: LU
= “Forest lands”, i = “Primary, Dry Forest converted to Grassland”); in ha year-1
EFi,t
Emission factor applicable to sub-category i of category LU in year t; in tCO2-e ha-1
i
Sub-category i in category LU; dimensionless
I
Total number of sub-categories in all LU categories related to a REDD+ activity; dimensionless
t
Year in the period 1986-2013; dimensionless
LU
One of the IPCC defined land use categories: Forest lands (“FL”), Cropland (“CL”), Grassland
(“GL”), Wetlands (“WL”), Settlements (“SL”), Other lands (“OL”).
Relation to IPCC Guidelines and Equations
The term DAi,t in IPCC equations
IPCC equations do not always use the same notation to refer to AD. For instance, in equation 2.646 and
equation 2.847, IPCC uses letter A to describe the amount of land that remained in the same land use
category, while in equation 2.1648 the notation
ATO _ OTHERS i is used to refer to land that converted to
other land use category. Regardless, the concept is the same: the extent of land is used to calculate the C
stock changes.
Notations A,
ATO _ OTHERS i , and others used in the IPCC equations that refer to areas or area changes are
equivalent to notation ADi,t used in equation 2 of the ERPD. See CDI 2015.b, Annex 2, for more details.
The term EFi,t in IPCC equations
Furthermore, the term EFi,t in equation 2 should be understood as the sum of:
(1)
CO2 emissions or absorptions associated to C stock changes taking place in one hectare that
remains under the same land use category (i.e. when forest grows or for FLFL) or when the land
use category changes (i.e. when FL is converted to any another land use category); and
(2)
Non-CO2 gas emissions occurring in this same hectare of land when it remains in the same land
use category or when it converts to another land use category.
This is shown in the following equation:
FEi ,t  Ci ,t  ENCO 2i ,t
(3)
Where:
FEi,t
Emission factor applicable to sub-category i of category LU in year t; in tCO2-e ha-1
Ci ,t
C stock changes in sub-category i of category LU in year t; in tCO2-e ha-1
ENCO 2i ,t
Non-CO2 gas emissions in sub-category i of category LU in year t; in tCO2-e ha-1
46 Ch.2,
section 2.2.2, p.2.10. 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
Section 2.3.1.1, p.2.12. 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
48 Ch.2, Section 2.3.1.2, p.2,20. 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
47 Ch.2,
106
IPCC methods and equations used to estimate
Ci ,t
and
ENCO 2i ,t of equation 3 are shown in detail in
Annex 2 of CDI 2015.b.
Method used to construct the reference level
The reference level (RL) was estimated by adding the annual average of emissions for 1996-2009 for each
REDD+ activity:
2009
𝑅𝐿 = ( ∑ 𝐸𝑡 ) ∗ (2009 − 1996 + 1)−1
(4)
𝑡=1996
Where:
RL
Reference level; in tCO2-e year-1
Et
Emissions in year t; in tCO2-e year-1
t
a year between 1996 and 2009
107
Figure 8.3.1. Definition of REDD+ activities in relation to the land use change matrix for Costa Rica (simplified version). More information available in the FREL TOOL CR v.1.
FL
Bmh
bp
Bn
…
1985
bp
Bmh
bn
Bh
1986
1991
bp
…
2022
2023
bn
bp
…
2022
2023
ΔCCL
ΔCCL
ΔCCL
ΔCCL
ΔCCL
ΔCGL
ΔCGL
ΔCGL
ΔCGL
ΔCGL
ΔCWL
ΔCWL
ΔCWL
ΔCWL
ΔCWL
ΔCSL
ΔCSL
ΔCSL
ΔCSL
ΔCSL
ΔCOL
ΔCOL
ΔCOL
ΔCOL
ΔCOL
ΔCCL
ΔCGL
ΔCWL
ΔCSL
ΔCOL
ΔCCL
ΔCGL
ΔCWL
ΔCSL
ΔCOL
ΔCCL
ΔCGL
ΔCWL
ΔCSL
ΔCOL
ΔCCL
ΔCGL
ΔCWL
ΔCSL
ΔCOL
ΔCCL
ΔCGL
ΔCWL
ΔCSL
ΔCOL
ΔCCL
ΔCGL
ΔCWL
ΔCSL
ΔCOL
ΔCCL
ΔCGL
ΔCWL
ΔCSL
ΔCOL
ΔCCL
ΔCGL
ΔCWL
ΔCSL
ΔCOL
ΔCCL
ΔCGL
ΔCWL
ΔCSL
ΔCOL
ΔCFL
ΔCCL
ΔCGL
ΔCWL
ΔCSL
ΔCOL
bn
…
1985
1986
1991
…
2022
2023
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
CFL
ΔCFL
1986-91
ΔCFL
…
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
bp
CFL
… -1985
bn
OL
ΔCFL
2022-23
etc…
SL
ΔCFL
… -1985
Bh
WL
CFL
… -1985
1986-91
…
2022-23
bp
FL
1986
1991
GL
etc…
bn
…
1985
CL
ΔCFL
1986-91
ΔCFL
…
ΔCFL
2022-23
CL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCCL
ΔCGL
ΔCWL
ΔCSL
ΔCOL
GL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCCL
ΔCGL
ΔCWL
ΔCSL
ΔCOL
WL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCCL
ΔCGL
ΔCWL
ΔCSL
ΔCOL
SL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCCL
ΔCGL
ΔCWL
ΔCSL
ΔCOL
OL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCFL
ΔCCL
ΔCGL
ΔCWL
ΔCSL
ΔCOL
Notes: FL: Forest Lands; CL: Cropland; GL: Grassland; SL: Settlements; OT: Other Lands; Bmh = Pluvial very wet forests; Bh: Wet forests; bp: primary forests; bn: new
forests; AAAA-AA (e.g. 1986-91): age cohort of new forests (period during which new forests appeared in non-forested lands).
ΔC
C
= C stocks changes included in the “deforestation” activity.
= C stocks included in the “conservation” activity".
ΔC
= C stocks changes included in the “enhancement of forest C stocks” activity in land previously converted to FL.
ΔC
= C stocks changes included in the "enhancement of forest C stocks” activity in land converted to FL.
108
Other remarks

Both ADi.t and EFi,t were estimated on an annual basis, for each sub-category represented in the land use
change matrices; especially for -->FL, EF vary every year according to growth curves by Cifuentes (2008).

Depending on the REDD+ activity considered49, EFi,t and Et may be positive, representing a net emission of GHG
to the atmosphere (and a reduction of C stocks in the forest), or be negative, in which case it represents a net
absorption of GHG from the atmosphere (and an increase of C stocks in the forest).
Activity data and emission factors used for calculating the average annual historical emissions over the
Reference Period
Activity data
Construction of land-cover maps based on satellite imagery
For estimating AD, seven land-cover maps were constructed in the period 1986-201350. The methods used for
processing and classifying satellite imagery are fully described in a separate report (Agresta et al., 2015.a)51. The
report and annexes are available here. Data for constructing the land-cover maps was obtained from four different
satellite sensors of the Landsat family (Landsat 4 TM, Landsat 5 TM, Landsat 7 ETM+, Landsat 8 OLI/TIRS). In order
to minimize cloud cover, several scenes from the same season (from the current or following year) were combined
to obtain cloud-free maps within a 14- month timeframe.
Consistent land representation
All land-cover maps consistently represented IPCC’s land use categories for 1986-2013. In some cases, categories
were further divided into sub-categories as suggested by IPCC. Sub-categories were defined according to the
feasibility of mapping them in a reliable and accurate way, and when the creation of a sub-category was
appropriate for the estimation EFs. All categories and sub-categories are consistent with the GHG national
inventory.
Forest stratification in Costa Rica
Considering that forest C stocks vary with forest type, and that they also depend on forest age, forest land was
stratified using two criteria:
1.
Holdrige’s Life Zone classification system (1966) 52 which stratifies forests according to elevation,
evapotranspiration and rainfall
2.
Approximate forest age according to the time series analysis
49 The
activities are: DF: ·Deforestation”, DG: ·Degradation”; AE: Enhancement of forest carbon stockss”; MF: Sustainable
management of forest”; and CO: “ Conservation of forest carbon existences”.
50 It must be noted that Agresta et al. (2015.a) showed annual AD assuming that all sub-periods are equal to 5 years, when in
reality the duration of the sub-periods ranges between 2 and 7 years. This explains the difference between the annual
deforestation data presented by Agresta et al. (2015.a) and the results presented in the ERPD and in the technical document
describing the reference level (CDI, 2015.b)50. A detailed explanation of the consistency of data presented by Agresta et al.
(2015.a) and in the ERDP (that is consistent with the data presented in CDI, 2015.b) is presented in a separate report (CDI,
2015.d)50.
51 Agresta, Dimap, Universidad de Costa Rica, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 2015.a. Final Report: Generating a consistent
historical time series of activity data from land use change for the development of Costa Rica’s REDD plus reference level:
Methodological Protocol. Report prepared by the Government of Costa Rica under the Carbon Fund of the Forest Carbon
Partnership (FCPC). 44 p.
52Holdridge, L.R.1966. The Life Zone System, Adansonia VI: 2: 199.
109
AD by forest type were obtain by intersecting classified satellite imagery with Holdrige’s Life Zones (1966).
Resulting classes were grouped in three groups: “Very wet and pluvial forests”, “Rain forests” and “Dry forests”.
The FREL TOOL CR v.1. shows how Life Zones were grouped into these three main groups. Additionally,
mangroves and palm forests (yolillales) were classified as separate groups. These two were identified by spectral
analysis and by creating “masks”.
In order to estimate AD for by age class, the following assumptions were made:
1.
New forests become detectable as “forest” in the satellite images when they reach a certain minimum age.
This minimum age depends on the forest type and was defined according to expert judgement in
collaboration with IMN experts. The minimum age at which forests become detectable in Landsat images
is 8 years for “Dry forests” and 4 years for all other forest types.
2.
Detected area of new forest for a certain period (e.g. 1997-2001), was assumed to be equally distributed
for each year in the period (e.g. 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001). Therefore, total area for new forest that
appeared in each period was divided by the number of years in each period to estimate the annual AD for
each age class.
3.
To identify new forests before 1986, an auxiliary map provided by IMN was used to discern primary forests
from secondary forests. It was assumed that age classes of secondary forests were proportionally
equivalent prior to 1986.
110
Key dates in the historical time series
Before defining the dates that would be part of the AD time series, a number of meetings with high-level MINAE
officers were held to determine key policiy milestones in the forestry sector. The goal behind this approach was to
transparently reflect national circumstances.
Some of the most important dates included in the time series are:

January 23, 1997: the Forestry Law #7575 was formally and publicly officialized. This law created
FONAFIFO’s PSA, defined four forest environmental services and among other policy instruments and
mechanisms.

July 03, 2008: the Ecomercados II Law #8640 was formally and publicly officialized. This law provided $30
million for an expanded PSA operation and ensured a donation of $10 million to create a heritage fund for
the protection of biodiversity (FBS).

January 01, 2010: the National REDD+ Strategy began formal implementation, according to Costa Rica’s
ER-PIN, dated February 15, 2013. Additionally, the National Forestry Development Plan for 2011-2020
which included REDD+ as part of its policy framework.
AD time series and land cover maps
The following land-cover maps (LCM) were produced:







LCM 1986/87: Land-cover map for 12.31.1986-01.01.1987.
These LCM and the forest cover change maps constructed for the historical series 1986-2013 are shown in Figure
8.3.2.
111
Figure 8.3.2.Land-cover Maps (LCM) and Land-cover Change Maps constructed for the historical series 1986-2013.
1985/86
Land-cover
Description
Color
Area
ha
Cropland – annual
Grassland
Settlements
Wetlands - natural
Other land - moor
2,807,028.90
380,685.24
336,664.35
197,797.23
1,190,245.23
22,876.92
12,993.03
89.55
10,412.37
1,479.33
38,303.19
115,364.16
Total Area
5,113,939.50
112
1991/92
Land-cover
Description
Color
Cropland – annual
Grassland
Settlements
Wetlands - natural
Other land - moor
Total Area
Area
ha
2,532,567.87
586,538.10
331,386.39
203,960.88
1,239,471.36
30,210.12
17,814.33
659.88
10,411.92
1,392.21
44,162.28
115,364.16
5,113,939.50
113
1997/98
Land-cover
Description
Color
Area
ha
Cropland – annual
Grassland
Settlements
Wetlands - natural
Other land - moor
2,420,974.53
670,106.25
345,113.28
211,800.60
1,239,510.42
35,203.86
17,126.55
190.08
10,416.96
2,009.43
46,123.38
115,364.16
Total area
5,113,939.50
114
2000/01
Land-cover
Description
Color
Area
ha
Cropland – annual
Grassland
Settlements
Wetlands - natural
Other land - moor
2,335,604.94
735,865.83
351,353.43
218,656.71
1,242,871.56
38,819.97
18,742.95
324.36
10,416.33
1,662.48
44,256.78
115,364.16
Total area
5,113,939.50
115
2007/08
Land-cover
Description
Color
Area
ha
Cropland – annual
Grassland
Settlements
Wetlands - natural
Other land - moor
2,265,429.96
770,395.05
323,930.52
242,276.76
1,260,219.24
43,086.69
21,875.85
294.12
10,422.45
1,948.32
58,696.38
115,364.16
Total area
5,113,939.50
116
2011/12
Land-cover
Description
Color
Area
ha
Cropland – annual
Grassland
Settlements
Wetlands - natural
Other land - moor
2,233,118.88
824,096.61
311,794.20
244,122.84
1,247,688.99
45,039.24
22,350.60
336.69
10,420.38
1,973.43
57,633.48
115,364.16
Total area
5,113,939.50
117
2013/14
Land-cover
Description
Color
Cropland – annual
Grassland
Settlements
Wetlands - natural
Other land - moor
Total area
Area
ha
2,215,543.23
918,483.39
277,262.82
251,873.55
1,190,834.73
46,998.90
24,484.86
382.32
10,423.71
1,897.29
60,390.54
115,364.16
5,113,939.50
118
Forest Cover Change Map 1986-2013
Category in
Category in
Activities*
LCM 1985/86
LCM 2013/14
REDD+
Primary forest
Primary forest
New forest
Non-forest
Without information
Total
Color
Area*
ha
CO
2,215,543.23
New forest
DF.bp+AE.bn
190,090.98
Non-forest
DF
398,711.52
New forest
AE.bn
323,697.24
Non-forest
DF.bn
59,671.17
New forest
AE.bn
Non-forest
N.A.
404,695.17
1,406,166.03
115,364.16
5,113,939.50
* There might be more activities considering that some areas may have changed their category during 19862013. For this reason, the areas are not the same as those showed in other tables (except for the case of
FLFL (primrary forests)).
119
Forest Cover Change Map 1997-2011
Category in
LCM 1997/98
Category in
Activities*
LCM 2011/12
REDD+
Primary forest
Primary forest
New forest
Non-forest
Without information
Total
CO
Color
Area*
ha
2,233,118.88
New forest
DF.bp + AE.bn
36,940.50
Non-forest
DF
150,915.15
New forest
AE.bn
529,521.93
Non-forest
DF.bn
140,584.32
New forest
AE.bn
257,634.18
Non-forest
N.A.
1,649,860.38
115,364.16
5,113,939.50
* There might be more activities considering that some areas may have changed their category during 19862013. For this reason, the areas are not the same as those showed in other tables (except for the case of
FLFL (primrary forests)).
120
Land use change matrices
LCM were combined in a geographic information system to obtain information on land-cover changes for each
historical period analyzed. The following land use change matrices (CM) were developed:






CM 1986-91: Land use changes for period 01.01.1986-12.31.1991.
These matrices and their corresponding multi-annual AD are reported in the FREL TOOL CR v.1. These matrices are
not shown here due to their size.
Interpolation of multi-annual land use change matrices to estimate annual AD
Annual AD land change matrices are shown in the FREL TOOL CR v.1. The conversion of multi-annual data to
annual data assumed each year presented equal annual changes. For instance, to estimate AD for year 1986, AD
reported for 1986-1991 were divided by six (except for AD representing cells with no changes, which are calculated
by subtracting the annual changes in the cells representing changes from the cells with no changes). Table 8.3.1
shows a summary of the estimated AD. That same table is found in more detail, in the FREL TOOL CR v.1.
Use of land use change matrices to define the REDD+ activities
Besides estimating annual AD, land use change matrices were also used to define the REDD+ activities in a
transparent way, and therefore avoid any possibility of double counting. As shown in summary in Figure 8.3.1.,
this was achieved by assigning a REDD+ activity to each cell in the land use change matrix.
121
Table 8.3.1. Activity data by source and sink (in hectares per year).
Notes: DF = deforestation; DG = Forest Degradation; AE = C Stocks Enhancement; MF = Sustainable management of forest; CO = Conservation forest C stocks; NI = No
information; OT = Other lands (non-forest); an = anthropogenic; na = non-anthropogenic; to = total; bp = primary forest; bn = new forest; AAAA-AA = age classes; ->FL = Lands converted to forest lands.
Years 1996-1999.
Note: years 1986-1995 are notpart of the reference level under the FCPF Carbon Fund but are reported in order to comply with the transparency principle.
Activity
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
DF.an.to
50,947
50,947
50,947
50,947
50,947
50,947
28,666
28,666
28,666
28,666
28,666
28,666
54,442
54,442
DF.an.bp
44,550
44,550
44,550
44,550
44,550
44,550
18,363
18,363
18,363
18,363
18,363
18,363
28,194
28,194
DF.an.bn
6,397
6,397
6,397
6,397
6,397
6,397
10,304
10,304
10,304
10,304
10,304
10,304
26,249
26,249
… - 1985
6,397
6,397
6,397
6,397
6,397
6,397
2,884
2,884
2,884
2,884
2,884
2,884
4,169
4,169
1986-91
-
-
-
-
-
-
7,420
7,420
7,420
7,420
7,420
7,420
13,250
13,250
1992-97
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8,830
8,830
1998-00
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2001-07
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2008-11
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2012-13
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
DF.na.to
894
894
894
894
894
894
351
351
351
351
351
351
775
775
DF.na.bp
747
747
747
747
747
747
236
236
236
236
236
236
263
263
DF.na.bn
147
147
147
147
147
147
114
114
114
114
114
114
513
513
… - 1985
147
147
147
147
147
147
21
21
21
21
21
21
20
20
1986-91
-
-
-
-
-
-
93
93
93
93
93
93
51
51
1992-97
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
442
442
1998-00
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2001-07
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2008-11
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2012-13
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
DF.to.to
51,841
51,841
51,841
51,841
51,841
51,841
29,017
29,017
29,017
29,017
29,017
29,017
55,218
55,218
DF.to.bp
45,296
45,296
45,296
45,296
45,296
45,296
18,599
18,599
18,599
18,599
18,599
18,599
28,457
28,457
122
Activity
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
DF.to.bn
6,544
6,544
6,544
6,544
6,544
6,544
10,418
10,418
10,418
10,418
10,418
10,418
26,761
26,761
… - 1985
6,544
6,544
6,544
6,544
6,544
6,544
2,905
2,905
2,905
2,905
2,905
2,905
4,189
4,189
1986-91
-
-
-
-
-
-
7,513
7,513
7,513
7,513
7,513
7,513
13,301
13,301
1992-97
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9,271
9,271
1998-00
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2001-07
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2008-11
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2012-13
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
DG
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
AE.bp
AE.bn
417,230
451,092
484,953
518,815
552,676
586,538
600,466
614,394
628,322
642,250
656,178
670,106
692,026
713,946
… - 1985
376,824
370,280
363,735
357,191
350,646
344,102
341,197
338,292
335,387
332,483
329,578
326,673
322,484
318,294
1986-91
-
40,406
80,812
121,218
161,624
202,030
234,923
227,410
219,897
212,383
204,870
197,357
184,057
170,756
1992-97
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
24,346
48,692
73,038
97,384
121,730
136,805
127,533
1998-00
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
48,681
2001-07
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2008-11
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2012-13
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TCTF
40,406
40,406
40,406
40,406
40,406
40,406
24,346
24,346
24,346
24,346
24,346
24,346
48,681
48,681
MF.bp
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
MF.bs
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CO.bp
2,759,049
2,713,753
2,668,457
2,623,160
2,577,864
2,532,568
2,513,969
2,495,370
2,476,771
2,458,172
2,439,573
2,420,975
2,392,518
2,364,061
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
OT
1,885,819
1,897,254
1,908,689
1,920,123
1,931,558
1,942,993
1,970,487
1,975,158
1,979,829
1,984,500
1,989,171
1,993,842
1,974,178
1,980,714
Total area
5,113,940
5,113,940
5,113,940
5,113,940
5,113,940
5,113,940
5,113,940
5,113,940
5,113,940
5,113,940
5,113,940
5,113,940
5,113,940
5,113,940
SI.b
123
Years 2000-2013.
Note: years 2010-2013are not part of the reference level under the FCPF Carbon Fund; the results of the first year of the ER-P are shown instead (see Section 13).
Activity
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
DF.an.to
54,442
23,255
23,255
23,255
23,255
23,255
23,255
23,255
25,009
25,009
25,009
25,009
33,842
33,842
DF.an.bp
28,194
9,761
9,761
9,761
9,761
9,761
9,761
9,761
7,787
7,787
7,787
7,787
8,510
8,510
DF.an.bn
26,249
13,494
13,494
13,494
13,494
13,494
13,494
13,494
17,222
17,222
17,222
17,222
25,332
25,332
… - 1985
4,169
1,826
1,826
1,826
1,826
1,826
1,826
1,826
1,188
1,188
1,188
1,188
1,607
1,607
1986-91
13,250
2,891
2,891
2,891
2,891
2,891
2,891
2,891
2,194
2,194
2,194
2,194
2,128
2,128
1992-97
8,830
4,429
4,429
4,429
4,429
4,429
4,429
4,429
2,335
2,335
2,335
2,335
1,751
1,751
1998-00
-
4,349
4,349
4,349
4,349
4,349
4,349
4,349
5,824
5,824
5,824
5,824
4,918
4,918
2001-07
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5,681
5,681
5,681
5,681
7,229
7,229
2008-11
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7,699
7,699
2012-13
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
DF.na.to
775
554
554
554
554
554
554
554
720
720
720
720
863
863
DF.na.bp
263
264
264
264
264
264
264
264
291
291
291
291
278
278
DF.na.bn
513
289
289
289
289
289
289
289
429
429
429
429
585
585
… - 1985
20
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
22
22
22
22
10
10
1986-91
51
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
29
29
29
29
31
31
1992-97
442
106
106
106
106
106
106
106
67
67
67
67
54
54
1998-00
-
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
76
76
76
76
51
51
2001-07
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
235
235
235
235
106
106
2008-11
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
333
333
2012-13
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
DF.to.to
55,218
23,808
23,808
23,808
23,808
23,808
23,808
23,808
25,729
25,729
25,729
25,729
34,705
34,705
DF.to.bp
28,457
10,025
10,025
10,025
10,025
10,025
10,025
10,025
8,078
8,078
8,078
8,078
8,788
8,788
DF.to.bn
26,761
13,783
13,783
13,783
13,783
13,783
13,783
13,783
17,651
17,651
17,651
17,651
25,917
25,917
… - 1985
4,189
1,851
1,851
1,851
1,851
1,851
1,851
1,851
1,210
1,210
1,210
1,210
1,617
1,617
1986-91
13,301
2,924
2,924
2,924
2,924
2,924
2,924
2,924
2,223
2,223
2,223
2,223
2,160
2,160
1992-97
9,271
4,535
4,535
4,535
4,535
4,535
4,535
4,535
2,402
2,402
2,402
2,402
1,805
1,805
124
Activity
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
1998-00
-
4,473
4,473
4,473
4,473
4,473
4,473
4,473
5,900
5,900
5,900
5,900
4,969
4,969
2001-07
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5,916
5,916
5,916
5,916
7,335
7,335
2008-11
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8,032
8,032
2012-13
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
DG
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
AE.bp
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
AE.bn
735,866
740,799
745,731
750,664
755,597
760,530
765,462
770,395
783,820
797,246
810,671
824,097
871,290
918,483
… - 1985
314,105
312,254
310,403
308,552
306,701
304,850
302,999
301,148
299,938
298,728
297,518
296,309
294,691
293,074
1986-91
157,455
154,532
151,608
148,684
145,760
142,836
139,912
136,988
134,765
132,542
130,319
128,096
125,936
123,776
1992-97
118,262
113,727
109,192
104,656
100,121
95,586
91,051
86,516
84,113
81,711
79,309
76,906
75,101
73,296
1998-00
97,362
141,570
137,096
132,623
128,150
123,676
119,203
114,729
108,829
102,929
97,029
91,129
86,161
81,192
2001-07
-
-
18,716
37,432
56,149
74,865
93,581
112,297
125,097
119,181
113,265
107,349
100,015
92,680
2008-11
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
31,077
62,154
93,231
116,275
108,243
2012-13
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
73,111
48,681
18,716
18,716
18,716
18,716
18,716
18,716
18,716
31,077
31,077
31,077
31,077
73,111
73,111
MF.bp
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
MF.bs
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CO.bp
2,335,605
2,325,580
2,315,555
2,305,530
2,295,505
2,285,480
2,275,455
2,265,430
2,257,352
2,249,274
2,241,197
2,233,119
2,224,331
2,215,543
TCTF
SI.b
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
OT
1,987,251
2,023,753
2,028,845
2,033,937
2,039,029
2,044,122
2,049,214
2,054,306
2,047,038
2,041,690
2,036,342
2,030,995
1,983,613
1,945,208
Total area
5,113,940
5,113,940
5,113,940
5,113,940
5,113,940
5,113,940
5,113,940
5,113,940
5,113,940
5,113,940
5,113,940
5,113,940
5,113,940
5,113,940
125
Additional information on the methods used to estimate the AD and results obtained
DEFORESTATION (included in the reference level):
Annual AD for 1996-2009 and the corresponding deforestation rates (for primary forests) are presented below:
All forests:
•
Total deforestation:
31,557.48 ha yr-1
•
Anthropogenic deforestation:
30,961.56 ha yr-1
•
Non-anthropogenic deforestation: 595.92 ha yr-1
Primary forests:
•
14,921.28 ha yr-1 (-0.63 % yr-1)
•
14,657.49 ha yr-1 (-0.62 % yr-1)
•
Non-anthropogenic deforestation: 263.79 ha yr-1 (-0.01 % yr-1)
New forests:
•
16,636.20 ha yr-1
•
16,304.07 ha yr-1
•
Non-anthropogenic deforestation: 332.13 ha yr-1
Annual AD were calculated as follows:
DADF= (A1 – A2)/(t2 – t1+ 1)
(5)
Where:
DADF
Deforestation annual average AD; in ha year-1
A1
Forest area at the beginning of the sub-period assessed; in ha
A2
Forest area at the end of the sub-period assessed; in ha
t1
Start year of sub-period assessed; years
t2
Final year of sub-period assessed; years
Note: the historical period analyzed (1986-2013) is divided in 6 sub-periods: 1986-91, 1992-97,19982000, 2001-07,2008-11,and 2011-13.
The deforestation rates were calculated as follows:
1
𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒𝐷𝐹 =
𝐴 𝑡 −𝑡 +1
( 2) 2 1
𝐴1
−1
(6)
Where:
RateDF
Percentage of area lost (in the case of deforestation: DF) or gained (in the case of new forests) annually
in relation to the area of the previous year; %
A1
Forest area at the beginning of the sub-period assessed; in ha
A2
Forest area at the end of the sub-period assessed; in ha
t1
Start year of sub-period assessed; years
t2
Final year of sub-period assessed; years
126
Anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic deforestation
The ER-P and the C accounting framework makes a distinction between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic
emissions, including non-anthropogenic deforestation. For example, this could be related to volcanic activity and
flooding. To do this, satellite images were digitilized and forest loss associated around craters were assumed to be
non-anthropogenic. Likewise, the conversion of forest land to wetlands (natural water bodies) were also considered
non-anthropogenic deforestation, since in these cases forest losses are attributable to the natural movement of
river courses. Furthermore, changes in forest areas to artificial water bodies (such as the dams) were considered
human-induced and , thus, are identified as anthropogenic deforestation. The same accounting rules used to
exclude non-anthropogenic deforestation will be applied in future MRV for keeping consistency.
New forests and tree plantations
AD for new forests includes changes in areas of secondary forests and tree plantations. Tree plantations are part of
“new forests” because Costa Rica does not have consistent and reliable historical information to distinguished
them. This means that it was not possible to classify tree plantations with sufficient accuracy in the analysis of
satellite images to be able to keep them as a separate land use category. For these reasons, the “new forests” class
includes tree plantations.
To estimate EF for new forests, the equations by Cifuentes (2008)53 for secondary forests were used. Tree
plantations grow faster (and absorb more C in the first years of establishment) than secondary forests. Therefore,
given the current lack of data, it was considered conservative to apply these equations to the entire “new forests”
class, which includes tree plantations. This would underestimate removals in the reference level and in the MRV.
Finally, Costa Rica acknolwedges that better data must be collected and reported for tree plantations. This is
considered as a plan improvement in the national land cover/use monitoring system (Section 9).
All the technical elements presented and discussed above are summarized in the following table, which is part of
the ERPD template:
Description of the parameter
including the time period
covered (e.g. forest-cover
change between 2000 – 2005 or
transitions between forest
categories X and Y between
2003-2006):
• AD for anthropogenic deforestation
• Average annual forest loss for 1996-2009 (14 years)
Explanation for which sources or
sinks the parameter is used (e.g
deforestation or forest
degradation):
Anthropogenic deforestation
Data unit (e.g. ha/yr):
ha year-1
Value for the parameter:
•
•
•
•
Source of data (e.g. official
Total anthropogenic deforestation:
30,961.56 ha yr-1
Primary forest anthropogenic deforestation: 14,657.49 ha yr-1
New forest anthropogenic deforestation:
16,304.07 ha yr-1
Land-cover maps (LCM). The methods used to produce these maps
are described in a separate report 54
53Cifuentes,
M. 2008. Aboveground Biomass and Ecosystem Carbon stocks in Tropical Secondary Forests Growing in Six Life
Zones of Costa Rica. Oregon State University. School of Environmental Sciences. 2008. 195 p.
54Agresta, Dimap, Universidad de Costa Rica, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 2015.a. Informe Final: Generating a consistent
127
statistics) or description of the
method for developing the data,
including (pre-) processing
methods for data derived from
remote sensing images
(including the type of sensors
and the details of the images
used):
• Land Use Change Matrices produced by intersecting LCM. These
matrices may be reviewed in the FREL TOOL CR v.1.
• Annualized Land Use Change Matrixes produced by interpolation of
Land Use Change Matrices by period. These marices can be reviewed
in the FREL TOOL CR v.1.
Spatial level (local, regional,
national or international):
National, differentiated by type, six forest types sub-divided in “primary”
and “new forest” sub-categories: age cohorts corresponding to the
measurement periods (… - 1985, 1986-91, 1992-97, 1998-01, 2002-07,
2008-11, 2012-13).
Discussion of key uncertainties
for this parameter:
As described in section 12, the uncertainty level of the deforestation
activity forest is very high.
Estimation of accuracy,
precision, and/or confidence
level, as applicable and an
explanation of
assumptions/methodology in
the estimation:
The methods used to conduct the uncertainty analysis are described in
detail in a separate report55. However, as described in section 12,
uncertainties associated to AD are very high, with a relative error of 22%
for the deforestation activity data, at 90% of the significance level.
DEGRADATION (excluded from the reference level):
Costa Rica does not have spatially-explicit information to estimate forest degradation AD for 1986-2013 or for the
historic reference period considered in the construction of the reference level (1996-2009). Data is lacking on C
stock changes in FLFL (both for forest degradation and ehnancement of C stocks). Hence, forest degradation is
excluded from the reference level, mainly because Costa Rica is unable to include it at this time.
Considering that indicator 3.3 of the CF-MF requires the inclusion of emissions from forest degradation when they
exceed 10% of total forest-related emissions in the accounting area, during the reference historical period and
during the period covered by the ERPA, an assessment was made on the significance of forest degradation. The
details of the assessment are fully explained in a separate report56.
The best information currently available to assess C stock changes in FLFL consist of two canopy density maps that
for 2000/01 and 2013/14. These maps were prepared by extrapolating the correlation between a vegetation index (=
combination of Landsat image spectral bands) and the canopy cover percentage measured in a sample of forest
land areas in RapidEye images. According to Agresta et al., 2015.b57, the accuracy of these maps was 95% with a
confidence interval between 94 and 97% (p<0.05).
Protocolo metodológico. Informe preparado para el Gobierno de Costa Rica bajo el Fondo de Carbono del Fondo Cooperativo
para el Carbono de los Bosques (FCPF). 44 p.
55 CDI, 2015.b. Nivel de referencia de emisiones y remociones forestales de Costa Rica y metodología empleada para
construirlo. Informe preparado para el Gobierno de Costa Rica bajo el Fondo de Carbono del Fondo Cooperativo para el
Carbono de los Bosques (FCPF). 223 p.
56 CDI, 2015.c. Evaluación de la significancia de los cambios de existencias de carbono en los bosques primarios de Costa Rica.
Informe preparado para el Gobierno de Costa Rica bajo el Fondo de Carbono del Fondo Cooperativo para el Carbono de los
Bosques (FCPF). 12 p.
57Agresta, Dimap, Universidad de Costa Rica, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 2015.b. Índice de cobertura como base para la
estimación de la degradación y aumento de existencias de carbono: Generating a consistent historical time series of activity
128
Both canopy density maps were intersected with land-cover maps to identify these three sub-categories:

“intact” (= canopy cover > 85%);

“degraded” (= canopy cover between 60% y 85%); y

“very degraded” (= canopy cover < 60%).
Forest areas with loss of canopy cover between 2001 and 2013 were classified as degraded areas. Forest areas may
have gained canopy cover density in time, these may be considered to be areas where C stocks were enhanced.
However, C gains in FLFL (primary forests) are not included in the C accounting framework, due to lack of
appropriate EF and because this assessment did not cover the historical reference period 1986-2009 but only 20012013. Unfortunately due to lack of data, it is not possible to quantify correlation between changes in canopy cover
density and forest C stock changes, hence the following approximation should be interpreted with caution.
To estimate forest C stock changes associated to changes in canopy cover density, the following was applied:
For 2000/01:
1.
It was assumed that forests classified as “intact” had, in average, 100% of C stocks per ha estimated for
primary forests. “Intact” primary forests have a natural mortality and regeneration dynamics based on
frequent forest clearings with a certain level of canopy openness that could reach 15% and still be
considered normal for a primary forest with no human intervention.
2.
It was assumed that forests classified as “degraded” had an average of 78.38% of the AGB of “intact”
forests’ [78.38% = ((85%+60%)/2))/((85%-100%)/2))]58.
3.
It was assumed that forests classified as “very degraded” had, in average, 48.65% of the AGB of “intact”
forests [48.65%=((60%+30%)/2))/((85%-100%)/2))].
For year 2013/14:
1.
When canopy cover density decreased in comparison to 2000/2001, C stocks were calculated the same as
for 2000/2001.
2.
When canopy cover density increased in comparison to 2000/2001, it was assumed that C stocks for
2000/2001 forests were equal to C stocks for 2013/2014. Absorbed C in these areas was calculated
assuming a growth rate equivalent to a 1-12 yr age class according to Cifuentes’ equations (2008).
Results suggest that forest degradation may be significant (>10% of the total forest-related emissions; Tables 8.3.2
and 8.3.3).
data from land use change for the development of Costa Rica’s REDD plus reference level. Report prepared for the Government
of Costa Rica under the Carbon Fund of the Forest Carbon (FCPF). 18 p.
58 The percentages in parentheses refer to the minimum and maximum value of canopy cover for forests classified as “intact”,
“degraded” and “too degraded”.
129
Table 8.3.2.Canopy cover density changes between 2000/2001 and 2013/2014.
Condition in year:
Area
2000/01
2013/14
Intact
Intact
814,752.81
Intact
Degraded
226,317.06
Intact
Too degraded
55,896.66
Degraded
Intact
272,344.50
Degraded
Degraded
247,865.13
Degraded
too degraded
116,534.25
too degraded
Intact
86,688.99
too degraded
degraded
135,544.77
too degraded
too degraded
259,599.06
Total area
Area without change
Ha
2,215,543.23
1,322,217.00
Area with increased canopy cover density
494,578.26
Area with decreased canopy cover density
398,747.97
Total area
2,215,543.23
As seen in Table 8.3.2., the area in which canopy cover density decreased (398,747.97 ha) is significantly lower
(80.62%) than the area in which the canopy cover density increased (494,578.26 ha). However, it must be assumed
that when canopy is lost, emissions may be muchh higher than the potential absorptions during canopy recovery in
an equivalent area, since under a conservative assumption, canopy loss is usually due to mortality of older, higher C
trees, and that canopy recovery occurs when younger trees regenerate and fill forest gaps.
Results in terms of C stock changes are shown inTable 8.3.3. All calculations steps are available in the Excel file
“Significance of forest degradation” and are described in detail in CDI (2015.c) 59.According to Table 8.3.3., net
emissions for 2000/2001 to 2013/2014 are 3,231,251.46 tCO2-e yr-1 60, which would represent 35% of total forestrelated emissions between 2000/2001 and 2013/2014.
The results from this assessment must not be considered an estimate of emissions from forest degradation and of
absorptions from the enhancement of forest C stocks in FLFL (primary forests), but as indication FLFL was a net
source of emissions during the analysis period, and that those net emissions could be significant (> 10% of the total
emissions) according to the CF-MF.
59
CDI, 2015.c. Analysis of significance of carbon stock changes in forests that remained forests. Report prepared for the
Government of Costa Rica under the Carbon Fund of the Forest Carbon Partnership (FCPF). 12 p.
60The emissions from canopy cover loss are estimated in 4,263,434 t CO -e yr-1 while the absorptions from canopy cover gains
2
are estimated in -1,032,182 t CO2-e yr-1, which results in a net balance of 3,231,251.46 tCO2-e yr-1.
130
Table 8.3.3. Emissions and absorptions related to changes in the canopy cover density in FLFL (Primary forests) for 2000/2001 to 2013/2014.
Condition
2000/01
Canopy
Cover
Density
%
BHP
BHP
BHP
BHP
BHP
BHP
BHP
BHP
BHP
i
i
i
d
d
d
md
md
md
96.0%
94.1%
93.4%
75.6%
74.4%
72.8%
45.6%
43.0%
34.4%
647.57
647.57
647.57
521.97
521.97
521.97
348.49
348.49
348.49
i
d
md
i
d
md
i
d
md
96.2%
76.4%
45.7%
94.3%
75.3%
42.5%
93.7%
73.7%
33.5%
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
i
i
i
d
d
d
md
md
md
93.8%
92.0%
91.4%
75.9%
74.0%
72.0%
44.0%
40.8%
32.0%
473.46
473.46
473.46
384.37
384.37
384.37
261.31
261.31
261.31
i
d
md
i
d
md
i
d
md
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
i
i
i
d
d
d
md
md
md
92.1%
91.3%
90.9%
76.4%
73.9%
71.7%
43.8%
41.5%
32.9%
357.82
357.82
357.82
298.34
298.34
298.34
216.17
216.17
216.17
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
i
i
i
d
d
d
92.5%
90.8%
90.7%
80.0%
77.8%
73.3%
334.22
334.22
334.22
264.56
264.56
264.56
Forest
type
2013/14
C stocks
Canopy
Cover
Density
Average
Results
Regenerated
area %
C in
regeneration
C stocks
t CO2-e ha-1
%
t CO2-e ha-1
t CO2-e ha-1
647.57
521.97
348.49
521.97
521.97
348.49
348.49
348.49
348.49
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
18.7%
0.9%
0.0%
48.1%
30.8%
0.0%
0.16
19.62
0.96
50.58
32.32
-
647.73
521.97
348.49
541.59
522.93
348.49
399.06
380.81
348.49
637,156.71
141,482.88
34,876.35
167,559.03
102,636.27
46,140.30
58,863.24
62,952.30
106,209.81
(99,640.61)
17,769,981.71
10,431,022.73
(3,287,014.67)
(98,547.17)
8,004,776.50
(2,977,110.01)
(2,034,673.64)
-
(7,664.66)
1,366,921.67
802,386.36
(252,847.28)
(7,580.55)
615,752.04
(229,008.46)
(156,513.36)
-
93.7%
76.1%
43.1%
92.1%
73.9%
40.8%
91.6%
72.0%
31.4%
473.46
384.37
261.31
384.37
384.37
261.31
261.31
261.31
261.31
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
16.2%
0.0%
0.0%
47.6%
31.2%
0.0%
17.95
52.73
34.60
-
473.46
384.37
261.31
402.32
384.37
261.31
314.03
295.91
261.31
119,199.87
64,652.76
17,183.97
72,551.70
118,014.57
60,052.14
21,097.35
60,937.65
132,791.94
5,759,580.58
3,645,561.51
(1,302,537.00)
7,390,264.47
(1,112,394.45)
(2,108,379.78)
-
443,044.66
280,427.81
(100,195.15)
568,481.88
(85,568.80)
(162,183.06)
-
i
d
md
i
d
md
i
d
md
92.3%
74.3%
45.3%
91.4%
72.5%
40.3%
90.4%
70.9%
30.4%
357.82
298.34
216.17
298.34
298.34
216.17
216.17
216.17
216.17
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
15.0%
0.0%
0.0%
46.6%
29.4%
0.0%
0.22
13.30
41.28
26.04
-
358.04
298.34
216.17
311.64
298.34
216.17
257.45
242.21
216.17
2,870.64
3,687.66
990.72
2,820.06
8,947.26
5,490.81
454.86
3,353.94
8,150.85
(637.21)
219,331.82
140,335.65
(37,505.27)
451,195.96
(18,778.20)
(87,348.46)
-
(49.02)
16,871.68
10,795.05
(2,885.02)
34,707.38
(1,444.48)
(6,719.11)
-
i
d
md
i
d
md
93.0%
79.0%
42.7%
92.0%
77.5%
46.6%
334.22
264.56
168.31
264.56
264.56
168.31
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
12.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.15
3.64
-
334.37
264.56
168.31
268.20
264.56
168.31
14,141.79
4,449.42
212.67
7,319.25
5,687.28
516.06
(2,162.47)
309,965.23
35,283.42
(26,677.54)
49,667.01
(166.34)
23,843.48
2,714.11
(2,052.12)
3,820.54
Condition
t CO2-e ha-1
C in original
forest
Area
C stock changes
ha
t CO2-e
t CO2-e año-1
131
Condition
2000/01
Canopy
Cover
Density
%
MA
MA
MA
md
md
md
45.3%
45.6%
28.6%
168.31
168.31
168.31
i
d
md
90.2%
72.6%
30.5%
BP-Y
BP-Y
BP-Y
BP-Y
BP-Y
BP-Y
BP-Y
BP-Y
BP-Y
i
i
i
d
d
d
md
md
md
94.0%
93.3%
93.2%
74.8%
73.9%
72.4%
48.2%
42.6%
33.5%
241.66
241.66
241.66
191.56
191.56
191.56
122.34
122.34
122.34
i
d
md
i
d
md
i
d
md
94.7%
76.2%
45.9%
93.9%
75.5%
43.7%
93.2%
74.2%
32.7%
Forest
type
2013/14
C stocks
Condition
t CO2-e ha-1
Canopy
Cover
Density
Average
C in original
forest
Area
Results
Regenerated
area %
C in
regeneration
C stocks
t CO2-e ha-1
%
t CO2-e ha-1
t CO2-e ha-1
168.31
168.31
168.31
44.9%
27.0%
2.0%
13.60
8.18
0.59
181.92
176.49
168.91
208.71
669.42
1,357.11
(2,839.48)
(5,475.49)
(803.81)
(218.42)
(421.19)
(61.83)
241.66
191.56
122.34
191.56
191.56
122.34
122.34
122.34
122.34
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
19.2%
1.6%
0.0%
45.0%
31.6%
0.0%
0.14
4.20
0.35
9.86
6.93
-
241.80
191.56
122.34
195.76
191.91
122.34
132.20
129.27
122.34
41,383.80
12,044.34
2,632.95
22,094.46
12,579.75
4,334.94
6,064.83
7,631.46
11,089.35
(5,874.64)
603,433.17
314,172.14
(92,846.98)
(4,403.16)
300,074.40
(59,812.21)
(52,915.02)
-
(451.90)
46,417.94
24,167.09
(7,142.08)
(338.70)
23,082.65
(4,600.94)
(4,070.39)
-
Emissions for canopy cover loss in period 2001-2013
55,424,646.30
4,263,434.33
Absorptions for increase of canopy cover in period 2001-2013
(13,418,377.27)
(1,032,182.87)
Balance of net emissions for canopy cover changes in primary forests in period 2001-2013
42,006,269.03
3,231,251.46
Total emissions for anthropogenic deforestation in historical reference period 2001-2013
61,662,925.09
4,743,301.93
C stock changes
ha
Total emissions 2001-2013
t CO2-e
t CO2-e año-1
9,006,736.26
BHP = Pluvial and very wet forests; BH = Rain forests; BS = Dry forests; MA = Mangrove; BP-Y = Palm Forests (Yolillales).
i = intact; d = degraded; md = very degraded.
132
Considering forest degradation could represent a significant source of GHG emissions in Costa Rica, and
recognizing that the country does not have appropriate methods or data yet to estimate C stock changes in FLFL
(primary forests), Costa Rica will employ paragraph 10 of Decision 12/CP.17 which states that the Parties to the
UNFCCC agreed on a step-wise approach for developing REDD+ FREL/FRL, and that such improvements could be
done by incorporating better data and methodologies and, where appropriate, additional C pools, noting the need
for appropriate and predictable support, as mentioned in paragraph 71 of Decision 1/CP.16.
Considering such decisions, Costa Rica decides not to include forest degradation (and C stocks enhancement from
FLFL) in its reference level at this point, and to consider, according to the availability of appropriate and predictable
international support, the development of methodologies and data to estimate the emissions from forest
degradation. Plans are already in place to improve current MRV, as explained in Section 9.
ENHANCEMENT OF FOREST C STOCKS (included in the reference level)
Average annual AD for 1996-2009 and the areas new growing forests in each age class at the end of the historical
period (2009):
Average
1996-2009:
Area of new forests in 2009
in 2009:

Total for new forests in all age classes:
738,455 ha yr-1
797,246 ha

New forests that appeared in prior to a 1985:
311,194 ha yr-1
298,728 ha

New forests that appeared in 1986 – 1991:
157,294 ha yr-1
132,542 ha

104,885 ha yr-1
81,711 ha

89,632 ha yr-1
102,929 ha

45,523 ha yr-1
119,181 ha

2,220 ha yr-1
31,077 ha

0 ha yr-1
0 ha

Average area of new forests that appeared each year:
27,707 ha yr-1
31,077 ha
AD were calculated as follows:
ADAE= (A1 – A2)/(t2 – t1+ 1)
(7)
Where:
ADAE
Annual average AD of C stocks enhancement in new forests; in ha year-1
A1
New forest area at the beginning of the sub-period assessed; in ha
A2
New forest area at the end of the sub-period assessed; in ha
t1
Start of sub-period assessed; years
t2
End of sub-period assessed; years
New forests are established every year and their C stocks depend on their age. For this reason, the reference level
for the activity “enhanment of forest C stocks” cannot be estimated by multiplying average AD by an average
133
carbon EF, but must be determined by estimating yearly historical absorptions forest type and age class, and then
calculate the average over the historical period (1996-2009).
Conceptually, there are three possible situations in which enhancement of forest C stocks may take place:
1. In primary forests, when they recover from a degraded condition;
2. In forests established in previous periods, by growing and passing to older age clasess;
3. In non-forest lands when vegetation appears that complies with the definition for “forest”.
For constructing the reference level, these three situations were address in the following way:

Enhancement of forest C stocks FLFL (primary forests):
(excluded from the reference level)
Data and methods required to estimate enhancement of C forest C stocks in FLFL (primary forests) are similar to
the methods that would be used to estimate emissions for gross degradation in these forests. As mentioned in the
previous discussion regarding emissions for forest degradation, Costa Rica does not have sufficient quality
information yet to estimate C stock changes in FLFL (primary forests). Additionally, because forest degradation in
FLFL (primary forests) was not included in the C accounting framework, it may be argued that it is conservative to
excluded enhancement of forest C stocks due to forest growth in these same areas.

Enhancement of forest C stocks in existing new forests:
(included in the reference level)
New existing forests are all forests not classified as primary forests in the 1985/86 land-cover map and that
emerged at some point of the 1986-2013 time series. This means that new forests grow in previously non-forested
lands where vegetation did not comply with the definition of “forest”.For each year of the historical time series, the
area in which new forests remained standing at the end of the year in each age cohort61 was determined, obtaining
the AD shown inTable 8.3.4. The areas of new forests at the end of each year in each age class62 constitute AD for
the activity enhancement of forest C stocks. By multiplying these areas (AD) by the EF that corresponds to a
particular forest age class, the estimate enhancement of C stocks is obtained. .
In order to know the area for each age class and each forest type in each year of the historical period, its was
assumed that if in a historical period of T years (T = number of years between two land-cover maps) A hectares of
new forest had appeared, then – in each year of period T -A/T hectares had become forest lands.
In order to assign age to areas of new forests, IMN experts were consulted to determine the minimum age (MA) at
which new forests are supposed to become visible in satellite images (complying also with the definition of
“forest”). As shown in Figure 8.3.4., this methodology and assumption of initial age allowed determining the area
for each class of age for all forest types in all years.
61
“Age cohort” is understood as the annual age clases that were regenerated in a historical period between two land-cover
maps:…-1985, 1986-91, 1992-97, 1998-01, 2002-07, 2008-11, 2012-13.
62 “Age class” comprises all the forests with the same age in yrs. The number of age clases differs according to the age cohort
since some of them include more yrs than others.
134
Table 8.3.4. AD for C stock enhancement in new forests.
REDD+
Activity
Annual AD; hectares per year
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
AE.bn
417,230
451,092
484,953
518,815
552,676
586,538
600,466
614,394
628,322
642,250
656,178
670,106
692,026
713,946
735,866
… - 1985
376,824
370,280
363,735
357,191
350,646
344,102
341,197
338,292
335,387
332,483
329,578
326,673
322,484
318,294
314,105
1986-91
-
40,406
80,812
121,218
161,624
202,030
234,923
227,410
219,897
212,383
204,870
197,357
184,057
170,756
157,455
1992-97
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
24,346
48,692
73,038
97,384
121,730
136,805
127,533
118,262
1998-01
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
48,681
97,362
40,406
40,406
40,406
40,406
40,406
40,406
24,346
24,346
24,346
24,346
24,346
24,346
48,681
48,681
48,681
2001-07
2008-11
2012-13
Of year
REDD+
Activity
Annual AD; hectares per year
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
AE.bn
740,799
745,731
750,664
755,597
760,530
765,462
770,395
783,820
797,246
810,671
824,097
871,290
918,483
No data
No data
… - 1985
312,254
310,403
308,552
306,701
304,850
302,999
301,148
299,938
298,728
297,518
296,309
294,691
293,074
No data
No data
1986-91
154,532
151,608
148,684
145,760
142,836
139,912
136,988
134,765
132,542
130,319
128,096
125,936
123,776
No data
No data
1992-97
113,727
109,192
104,656
100,121
95,586
91,051
86,516
84,113
81,711
79,309
76,906
75,101
73,296
No data
No data
1998-01
141,570
137,096
132,623
128,150
123,676
119,203
114,729
108,829
102,929
97,029
91,129
86,161
81,192
No data
No data
2001-07
-
18,716
37,432
56,149
74,865
93,581
112,297
125,097
119,181
113,265
107,349
100,015
92,680
No data
No data
2008-11
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
31,077
62,154
93,231
116,275
108,243
No data
No data
2012-13
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
73,111
No data
No data
Of year
18,716
18,716
18,716
18,716
18,716
18,716
18,716
31,077
31,077
31,077
31,077
73,111
73,111
No data
No data
AE.bn = Enhancement of C stocks in new forests. Years in the first column represent age cohorts. Area reported under “Of year” is the new area converted to forest land in
the current year.
135
Figure 8.3.4.Chart used to assign age classes to the AD of new forests (age cohort 1992-97 is used as an example).
Reference year
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
MA
MA+1
MA+2
MA+3
MA+4
MA+5
MA+6
MA+7
MA+8
MA
MA+1
MA+2
MA+3
MA+4
MA+5
MA+6
MA+7
MA
MA+1
MA+2
MA+3
MA+4
MA+5
MA+6
MA
MA+1
MA+2
MA+3
MA+4
MA+5
MA
MA+1
MA+2
MA+3
MA+4
MA
MA+1
MA+2
MA+3
MA
MA+1
MA+2
Age
classes
present in
cohort
1992-97
Note: MA= minimum age at which forests are assumed to become visible in Landsat images and comply with the
definition of “forest”” (8 years for “Dry forests” and 4 years for all other forests).

Enhancement of C stocks in new forests that will be established on lands that did not meet the definition of
forest land in 2009
(included the reference level)
These are forests that will contribute to enhancing forest C stocks that did not exist by the end of the reference
period (2009). They include lands that by the end year of the reference historical period did not comply with the
definition of “forest”. As seen in Table 8.3.4., in average, between 1996 and 2009, -27,707 ha yr-1 of non-forest
lands were converted to FL (line “Of year” inTable 8.3.4). The reference level assumes, implicitly, that in the future
Costa Rica will be able of convert non-forest lands to FL at an average rate of at least 27,707 ha yr-1. In conclusion,
the reference level for the activity enhancement of forest C stocks was calculated as the annual historical average
of new forests removals during the 1996-2009 period.
All the technical elements presented and discussed are summarized in the following table:
2003-2006):
• AD for forest C stocks enhancement
• Annual average for period 1996-2009 (14 years)
Explanation for which sources
or sinks the parameter is used
(e.g deforestation or forest
degradation):
Forest C stocks enhancement in new forests (C gains in FLFL (primary
forests) are excluded from the reference level).
ha year-1

Total for new forests:
738,455 ha yr-1

Cohort … - 1985:
311,194 ha yr-1

Cohort 1986 – 1991:
157,294 ha yr-1
136
method for developing the
data, including (pre-)processing
used):

Cohort 1992 – 1997:
104,885 ha yr-1

Cohort 1998 – 2000:
89,632 ha yr-1

Cohort 2001 – 2007:
45,523 ha yr-1

Cohort 2008 – 2011:
2,220 ha yr-1

Cohort 2008 – 2011:
0 ha yr-1

New forests for the year:
27,707 ha yr-1
• Land-cover maps. The methods used to produce these maps are
described in a separate report63;
• Land Use Change Matrixes produced by intersecting these maps.
These matrices can be reviewed in the “FREL TOOL CR v.1” tool.
• Annualized Land Use Change Matrixes produced by interpoling the
land use change matrices. These matrices can also be reviewed in the
“FREL TOOL CR v.1” tool.
National, stratified in six forest types and sub-categories “primary” and
“new”; the latter, divided in age cohorts:… - 1985, 1986-91, 1992-97, 199801, 2002-07, 2008-11, 2012-13.
for this parameter:
As mentioned for previous parameters, AD uncertainty is high.
explanation of
the estimation:
The methods for conducting the uncertainty analysis are fully described in
a separate report64.The section dedicated to deforestation mentioned AD
uncertainty is high, with a relative error of 20% for the AD in new forests,
with a 90% of confidence.
SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF FOREST (excluded from the reference level)
Costa Rica does not have a spatially-explicit database for the estimation of C stock changes associated to
sustainable management of forests for 1986-2013 or for the historical reference period (1996-2009). Due to the lack
of data, this activity is excluded from the reference level.
Since emissions from forest degradation and absorptions from the enhancment of forest C stocks in FLFL (primary
forests) were excluded, and because it is not possible to estimate C stock changes in FLFL (whether these are
63Agresta,
Dimap, Universidad de Costa Rica, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 2015.a. Final Report: Generating a consistent
Methodological Protocol. Report prepared for the Government of Costa Rica under the Carbon Fund of the Forest Carbon
64 CDI, 2015.b. Reference level of emissions and forest absorptions in Costa Rica and methodology used to construct it. Repor
prepared for the Government of Costa Rica under the Carbon Fund of the Corest Carbon Partnership (FCPF). 223 p.
137
sustainably managed or not), , they remain constant in the historical reference period (1986-2009) and it is
assumed that they will also remain constant during the ERPA term.
CONSERVATION OF FOREST C STOCKS (excluded from the reference level)
Data presented in this section is only for information; this activity is not part of the reference level. Costa Rica is not
expecting payments for conservation of forest C stocks. However, Costa Rica will MRV C stocks in standing forests
and will report this information through BURs and National Communications with the goal to show the extensive
efforst made by the country in protecting forests in terms of t CO 2, understood as the amount of C stored in wood
and other C pools.
Data on the average area of standing primary forests for 1996-2009 and of primary forest areas existing at the end
of the reference historical period (2009) are presented here:
Average area
1996-2009:
Area at the end
of 2009:
Total deforestation
rate 1996-2009:

Total for primary forests:
2,323,420.97 ha
2,249,274.42 ha
-0.63%

Very wet and pluvial forests:
1,396,977.62 ha
1,370,550.47 ha
-0.36%

Rain forests:
723,783.04 ha
683,849.61 ha
-1.12%

Dry forests:
38,682.47 ha
37,459.03 ha
-0.78%

Mangroves:
36,067.30 ha
35,002.89 ha
-0.50%

Palm forests (Yolillales):
127,910.54 ha
122,412.42 ha
-0.81%
More information is available in table 8.3.5.
2003-2006):
• AD for the conservation of forest C stocks
Explanation for which sources
or sinks the parameter is used
(e.g deforestation or forest
degradation):
Conservation of forest carbon stocks in primary forests.
ha year-1
SeeTable 8.3.5.
• Land-cover Maps. The methods used to produce these maps are
described in a separate report65;
65Agresta,
Dimap, Universidad de Costa Rica, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 2015.a. Informe Final: Generating a consistent
138
method for developing the
data, including (pre-)processing
used):

Land Use Change Matrixes produced by intersecting land use change
maps. These matrices can be reviewed in the “FREL TOOL CR v.1”
tool.
• Annualized Land Use Change Matrixes produced by interpoling the
land use change matrices. These matrices can be reviewed in the
“FREL TOOL CR v.1” tool.
National, differentiating by six forest types of primary forest.
for this parameter:
As shown in section 12, the level of uncertainty of the activity data for
stable forests is low.
explanation of
the estimation:
The methods used to prepare the uncertainty analysis are fully described
in a separate report66;
As shown in section 12, the uncertainties associated to AD are low, with a
relative error of 4% with a confidence level of 90%..
Protocolo metodológico. Report prepared for the Government of Costa Rica under the Carbon Fund of the Forest Carbon
66CDI, 2015.b. Reference level of emissions and forest absorptions in Costa Rica and methodology used to construct it. Repor
139
Table 8.3.5. Information on AD for the conservation of forest carbon stocks.
Areas
Year
Carbon stocks
Very wet
and pluvial
forests
Rain
forests
Dry forests
Mangrove
s
Palm
forests
(Yolillales)
-0.36%
-1.12%
-0.78%
-0.50%
-0.81%
Total
Very wet and
pluvial forests
Rain forests
Dry forests
Mangroves
Palm forests
(Yolillales)
647.57
473.46
357.82
334.22
241.66
Total
year
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
tCO2-e
tCO2-e
tCO2-e
tCO2-e
tCO2-e
tCO2-e
2009
1,370,550
683,850
37,459
35,003
122,412
2,249,274
887,531,265
323,772,921
13,403,575
11,698,686
29,581,989
1,265,988,436
2010
1,365,617
676,219
37,166
34,827
121,425
2,235,254
884,336,552
320,160,384
13,298,732
11,639,928
29,343,316
1,258,778,913
2011
1,360,701
668,674
36,875
34,652
120,445
2,221,349
881,153,340
316,588,155
13,194,709
11,581,466
29,106,568
1,251,624,238
2012
1,355,804
661,214
36,587
34,478
119,473
2,207,556
877,981,585
313,055,783
13,091,500
11,523,297
28,871,731
1,244,523,897
2013
1,350,923
653,836
36,301
34,305
118,509
2,193,874
874,821,248
309,562,823
12,989,098
11,465,421
28,638,789
1,237,477,379
2014
1,346,061
646,541
36,017
34,133
117,553
2,180,304
871,672,286
306,108,837
12,887,497
11,407,835
28,407,725
1,230,484,181
2015
1,341,215
639,327
35,735
33,961
116,605
2,166,843
868,534,659
302,693,390
12,786,691
11,350,539
28,178,527
1,223,543,804
2016
1,336,388
632,194
35,456
33,791
115,664
2,153,491
865,408,326
299,316,050
12,686,673
11,293,530
27,951,177
1,216,655,756
2017
1,331,577
625,140
35,178
33,621
114,731
2,140,247
862,293,246
295,976,394
12,587,438
11,236,807
27,725,661
1,209,819,547
2018
1,326,784
618,165
34,903
33,452
113,805
2,127,109
859,189,380
292,674,000
12,488,979
11,180,370
27,501,966
1,203,034,694
2019
1,322,008
611,267
34,630
33,284
112,887
2,114,077
856,096,686
289,408,453
12,391,290
11,124,216
27,280,075
1,196,300,718
2020
1,317,250
604,447
34,359
33,117
111,976
2,101,149
853,015,124
286,179,342
12,294,365
11,068,344
27,059,974
1,189,617,148
2021
1,312,508
597,703
34,090
32,951
111,073
2,088,325
849,944,654
282,986,260
12,198,198
11,012,752
26,841,649
1,182,983,513
2022
1,307,784
591,034
33,824
32,785
110,177
2,075,603
846,885,237
279,828,805
12,102,783
10,957,440
26,625,085
1,176,399,351
2023
1,303,076
584,440
33,559
32,620
109,288
2,062,983
843,836,832
276,706,580
12,008,115
10,902,406
26,410,269
1,169,864,202
2024
1,298,386
577,919
33,297
32,457
108,406
2,050,463
840,799,400
273,619,192
11,914,188
10,847,648
26,197,186
1,163,377,613
2025
1,293,712
571,470
33,036
32,294
107,531
2,038,044
837,772,902
270,566,251
11,820,995
10,793,165
25,985,822
1,156,939,134
Note: the cells in yellow show (on the left) the average historical deforestation rates for 1996-2009 (in %) and (on the right) the average C stocks per hectare estimated for each
type of forest (in tCO2-e ha-1).
140
Emission factors
Method for the estimation of EF
As mentioned in section 8.3, the method used to estimate the emission factors (or absorption) is the IPCC method
called “carbon stock changes” (“stock difference method”, see IPCC GL, 2006, Chapter 2, Section 2.2.1, p. 2.6 on).
The calculations were implemented in all the cells of the land use change matrixes that represent transitions
between categories or transactions from one condition to another (i.e. forest age) within the same category. The
calculations were made by applying equation (1) explained above.
The emission factors were calculated as follows:

In conversions of areas classified as “forest” to categories of non-forest (i.e. “deforestation”) the
emission factor was calculated by assuming, on one side, the immediate oxidization of the 100% carbon
stocksed in forests, with the exception of a fraction of aboveground biomass transferred to long-life
Harvested Wood products, and on the other hand, carbon accumulation for an amount equivalent to the
first year of growth of the land categories following deforestation.
In conversions from “forest” to non-forest categories, it was also assumed that it is a common practice to
burn living and dead biomass of the forest that is not extracted in the form of wood. The slash-and-burn
practice was common in Costa Rica as it was and continues to be in many other countries. However, after
adopting Forestry Law 7575 in 1996, this practice started to considerably decrease. For that reason, it was
estimated, for each historical sub-period analyzed, a conservative percentage of forest areas turned into
non-forests in which it is considered that the conversion involved the slashing of biomass. . The
percentages applied were the following (See also sheet “DECISIONS” of “FREL TOOL CR v.1”):
-

Period 1986-1991: 100%
Period 1992-1997: 100%
Period 1998-2000: 50%
Period 2001-2007: 25%
Period 2008-2011: 25%
Period 2012-2013: 25%
In categories conversions from non-forest to “new forest” (i.e. “forest carbon stocks increase”): the
emission factor was calculated assuming, on one side, the immediate oxidization of 100% of the carbon
stocksed in the non-forest categories, with the exception of the cases of pastures and permanent crops –
where it was assumed that the existing arboreal biomass in these categories remains even after the
conversion - , and, on the other hand, immediate accumulation of the carbon contents estimated for new
forests at the minimum age in which these forests can be detected in the satellite images (8 years for “Dry
forests” and 4 years for the other types of forests).
Biomass burns was not assumed for that type of conversion.

In carbon stocks changes in new forest categories that remained new forests (i.e. “forest carbon pool
increases”): the absorption factor was calculated by assuming one year of growth, using the models
developed by (2008)67.

In the case of primary forests that remained primary forests (i.e. “forest carbon stocks conservation”):
it was assumed that the carbon contents in these forests does not change, i.e. that the emission or
absorption factors are equal to zero.
67 Cifuentes,
M., 2008. Aboveground Biomass and Ecosystem Carbon stocks in Tropical Secondary Forests Growing in Six Life
141
The emission or absorption factors calculated are reported in annual land use change matrixes in the sheets “FE
AAAA” (where “AAAA” indicates the year, for instance 1986) of the “FREL TOOL CR v.1” tool. For space reasons it
is no possible to report in this document all the emission factors calculated for each of the cells in the land use
change annual matrixes.
IPCC Tier
As explained in detail in a separate report 68 the emission factors were estimated:

At Tier 2 (using specific data of the country or the region) in the case of significant deposits (= that
represent >10% of the total forest origin emissions);

Using values for defects obtained from literature (meaning, those derived from IPCC and from scientific
literature) only in some cases in which the carbon deposit represented less than 15% of the total carbon
stocks and for the categories for which no national data were available.
Data used to estimate carbon stocks in relevant C pools
As indicated in the IPCC guidelines (2006 IPCC), in its decision trees, before collecting data on any carbon deposit, it
is important to prove whether there are data or not and if they are according to the quality required and if they can
be used for the defined purposes. Applying said guidelines, the following carbon stocks were obtained:

National Forest Inventory (NFI): In 2015, Costa Rica completed its first National Forestry Inventory. As shown
in Figure 8.3.5., the field work of the inventory was performed in 2013 and it had forecasted the collection of
data from 531 different parcels distributed in six different stratums for the estimate of aerial biomass carbon
deposits, root biomass, dead wood biomass, litter biomass and Soil organic carbon69.
Figure 8.3.5. Basic data on the sampling design of national forest inventory for Costa Rica.
Sampling points
km2
%
Primary forest
2,652
12,725
24,8
Secondary forest
2,120
10,172
19,2
Grassland
1,487
7,135
14,0
Palm forest
123
590
1,2
Tree plantations
81
388
0,8
Mangroove
71
340
0,7
Stratum
68
CDI, 2015.b. Reference level of emissions and forest absorptions in Costa Rica and methodology used to construct it. Repor
69 SINAC – Programa REDD-CCAD-GIZ, 2014. Field manual for national forest inventory in Costa Rica: Parcel design and
measurement of location and plot-related variables. Prepared by Jorge Fallas – consultant for the Emission reduction from
deforestation and Forest Degradation in Central America and the Dominican Republic Program (REDD/CCAD/GIZ). San José,
Costa Rica. 74 p.
142
Data in the national forest inventory represent the main source of data used to estimate the emission
factors, since these data are obtained in all the country with a consistent methodology and a sampling
plan that makes that the estimated values be representatives for the whole country.
Following IPCC guidelines, the data processed per parcel were analyzed to determine if they could be used
in exclusive for the purpose of estimating the emission factors for the REDD+ activities included in the
reference level. The conclusion obtained is that those data had to be complemented by data from another
sources for the following reasons:

Lack of data for some categories: The inventory provides no carbon pool data for some of the inventory
categories of the GHGes, with which the REDD+ reference level should have consistency per several decisions
of the CP related to the REDD+. For instance, the forestry inventory does not contribute with carbon stocks
data for the IPCC categories that are not forest lands. Another example is that it does not contribute with
carbon stocks data for different classes of new forests, without which it is not possible to construct a reference
level for the activity “forest carob pools increase”.

Incomplete database: Although Figure 8.3.5., taken from the inventory manual states that 532 parcels were to
be measured at the moment of constructing the reference level, only data for 289 parcels were available, and
therefore the database is still incomplete.

Incomplete documentation: In the months that the reference level construction was worked, it was not possible
to have Access to full information and documentation related to the methodology used by the forestry
inventory and the data provided, since they were still under development and revision;

Non-published data: As of the date of preparation of the reference level, the IFN data had not been officially
published, so they were still under revision and internal validation.
After assessing the data available at the forestry inventory and considering their characteristics at the time
of doing the estimates of emission factors, it was decided that it was necessary to look for additional data
to complement the information on the forestry inventory. This search was done through a meth-analysis
of the data published.

Mehta-analysis of studies published. Following IPCC guidelines, a meth-analysis of studies already published
on biomass and carbon contents was made, in order to find additional information originated at the national
level and in a temporary horizon not to exceed 10 years that could complement the IFN data in an appropriate
way. The methods used and the results obtained in this meth analysis are fully described in a separate report70.
The meth-analysis allowed finding numerous studies with quality data enough as to estimate the contents
of carbon in all the land use categories in the GHG inventory and represented in the land use change
matrixes constructed for the reference level.
Independent revision of carbon stocks estimates
Carbon stocks compiled were ordered, documented and analyzed based on an Excel Microsoft database called
“CARBON DATABASE”. The data sources used are also reported for each category and deposit, at the end of the
“CARBON” sheet in the “FREL TOOL CR v.1” tool. Due to the large number of references consulted, they are not
hereby reported.
70
CDI, 2015.b. Nivel de referencia de emisiones y remociones forestales de Costa Rica y metodología empleada para
construirlo. Informe preparado para el Gobierno de Costa Rica bajo el Fondo de Carbono del Fondo Cooperativo para el
Carbono de los Bosques (FCPF). 223 p.
143
The “CARBON DATABASE” along with its data sources and calculations on carbon stocks was presented to the
National Meteorological Institute for an independent revision. Based on the revision of the Institute, it was
concluded that the data collected and the estimates made on carbon stocks comply with the IPCC guidelines and
the requirements of the Methodological Framework of the FCPF Carbon Fund, so the estimated average carbon
stocks for each deposit and land use category were used both for the construction of the reference level and for
updating the GHG national inventory (currently in use) and to report the preparation of the National Contribution
within the Convention framework.
The result of the values of carbon stocks estimated for each deposit and category are shown inTable 8.3.8. and,
with more detail, in the sheet “CARBON” of “FREL TOOL CR v.1”.
Additional remarks on the data and methods used to estimate carbon stocks

Forest categories and sub-categories. At the beginning, it was forecasted to include in the reference level all
the REDD+ activities, and for that reason – in the “FREL TOOL CR v.1” – calculation sheets there are more
forest sub-categories than those finally considered in the construction of the reference level. For instance, in
the sheet “CARBON” there are carbon contents for primary forests without “sustainable management of
forest” (divided in the sub-categories of “intact”, “degraded” and “highly degraded”) and for primary forests
with “sustainable management of forest” (also divided into three sub-categories, one of which is called
“intervened”). At the end, for the “primary forest” categories, only the estimated values for “primary forests” +
“without sustainable management of forest” + “intact” were taken into account, since the land use change
matrixes only show activity data for this sub-category. Additionally, in the case of “secondary forests”, a subdivision is shown the sub-categories “with sustainable management of forest” and “without sustainable
management of forest”, but lastly all secondary forests were considered “without sustainable management of
forest”, which also corresponds to the historical reality for the period under analysis (1986-2013), since except
for some research tests, secondary forests are not subject to sustainable management of forest in Costa Rica.
The matrixes in the tool also have space for three types of “Tree plantations”, but – as explained before – since
it was not possible to produce reliable activity data for Tree plantations, they were considered under the “New
forests” category (whose activity data and carbon values appear under the label “Secondary forests” in the
calculation sheets of “FREL TOOL CR v.1”).
With regards to the carbon pool values estimated for each forest category and sub-category, more details
are provided in a separate report71.

Primary forests. Most of the data on carbon stocks in primary forests corresponds to data that are supposed
were obtained from an “intact” forest (or supposedly “intact”). That is why at the end, it was decided to
calculate a single static average value (that does not change with time) for each carbon deposit and to apply it
consistently.

New forests. For Tree plantations and secondary forests (= new forests) no static values on carbon stocks were
searched since they would have not served to construct a reference level for the activity “forest carbon stocks
increase”. In fact, new forests are dynamic land use categories in which carbon densities vary a lot in time. For
that reason, instead of defining “static” carbon contents, the models have been selected based on time.
In the case of Tree plantations, after the bibliographic revision, it was possible to evidence the existence of
multiple data on plantations. The existence of growth models for the main species (Tectona grandis,
Gmelina arborea, Bombacopsis quinatum, Vochysia ferruginea, etc.), combined with biomass expansion
factors (“BEF”) and specific densities could lead to fairly accurate models calibered with data of the
71 CDI,
2015.b. Reference level of emissions and forest absorptions in Costa Rica and methodology used to construct it. Repor
144
country or at least from the region. However, as mentioned above, during the quality analysis of the
activity data it was possible to evidence that the data for Tree plantations was not reliable, for there were
multiple inconsistencies with other sources. Therefore, it was decided to add the plantations within the
secondary forests creating the new “New forests” category and assume that the plantations have emission
and removal factors identical to those of secondary forests. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the data
compiled are available to be used within the framework of a possible update of the reference level.
In the case of secondary forests, “Very wet and pluvial forests”, “Rain forests” and “Dry forests”, the
carbon densities by annual age class were estimated by using modified versions of Cienfuentes’ models 72.
This doctoral thesis provides temporary carbon density models for six life zones: Very wet/pluvial montane
forest; Tropical very wet forest; Pre-montane very wet forest with basal-Pacific transition; Pre-montane
very wet forest with basal Atlantic transition; Tropical wet forest; and Dry forest. These models were
calibered with local data obtained from 54 sample parcels set for that purposes in a chrono-sequence of
parcels with different ages. The models are calibered as follows:
𝐵𝑡 = 𝐵𝑚𝑎𝑥 × [1 − exp(−𝑏1 × 𝑡)]b2
(8)
Where:
Aboveground biomass, dead wood and litter during t year, expressed in tons of dry matter ha-
Bt
1
Bmax
Aboveground biomass, dead wood and maximum litter in the life zone that asymptote with
that in the model
b1, b2
Parameters of curve 𝑏1 is the shape of the curve, i.e. the rate at which the aboveground
biomass approaches the maximum aboveground biomass, while b2 is the inflection or
retardation parameter until growth begins
t
Secondary forest age, i.e. years since abandonment
These models were applied by doing the following modifications:

Assignment of models to life zones: Considering that the six models were developed for specific life
zones, a consultation to experts was made73 in order to know which of the six models could be
applied, conservatively in each of the existing life zones in Costa Rica, obtaining the responses
found in Figure 8.3.2 This caused an assignment of each model to all life zones.

Bmax Change: In the equation above, the Bmax parameter is the asymptote in the model, while
the second term of the model shows values of 0 and 1 and are in reality an accumulation factor, so
the longer the period the more the model approaches 1. The Bmax parameter used by Cifuentes
(2008) comes from the data in Kauffman & Hughes (not published) of measurements in intact
forests. Said measurements covered a total 16 sample parcels distributed in six different life
zones. Therefore said values cannot be considered representative of all intact forests in Costa Rica
for the different life zones. As it can be seen in the following table, the values in Kauffman &
Hughes for intact forests exceed the mean values used in the calculations. Therefore, it was
decided to use Cienfuentes’ models (2008) but using as asymptote the aboveground biomass
estimated for intact primary forests, meaning that it was assumed that the growth curve for
secondary forests required the Cienfuentes model (same parameters) but with different
asymptotes.
72
Cifuentes,M., 2008. Aboveground Biomass and Ecosystem Carbon stocks in Tropical Secondary Forests Growing in Six Life
73
File 01 – Consultation to Experts Cienfuentes Modelos, Miguel Cifuentes_Rev.01 in the Secondary Model file.
145
Chart 8.3.6. Comparison of BARA values used in the calculations and estimates by Kauffman & Hughes (not
published).
Kauffman & Hughes mean
Level 2
Mean value (t C/ha)
value (t C/ha)

Very wet and pluvial forests
131.21
182.9
Rain forests
92.65
112.2
Dry forests
61.52
64.2
Reduction of models: Once analyzed the parameters of the different models and resulting curves
(see Figure 8.3.6) it was possible to see that the shape of some curves did not differ amongst
them in shape, indicating that the parameters might not be significantly different; the same
would not apply to the maximum arboreal biomass. The only curve that showed very divergent
values was the one for the “pluvial pre-montane tropical forest, transition to basal-Pacific” that
shows a characteristic not typical from a transition area to low rainfall areas.
146
Figure 8.3.6.Curves with the different aerial biomass growth models for secondary forests according to
Cienfuentes(2008), Becknell and Powers (2014) and the modified models used by the NDR. As it can be seen, the
models used in the NDR provide lower values. .


Application of models. Finally, after reducing the models as explained above, they were applied as
follows:
a.
To “Very wet and pluvial forests”, the model developed for “Very wet/montane pluvial
forest” was applied;
b.
To “Wet forests”, the model developed for “Very wet pre-montane forest transition to
basal-Atlantic” was applied;
In the case of “Dry forests”, the model developed for “Dry forest” was applied. It was possible to prove that this
model is very conservative in comparison to other secondary forest models such as the one in Becknell and
Powers (2014).This last model was not used in any case and was used for comparative purposes.
c.
In the case of new forests under the categories of “Mangroves” and “Palm forests
(Yolillales)”, since there was not data or models available, a lineal model was assumed in
which the maximum is the density of carbon in a primary forest and the minimum is zero.
The time to obtain the maximum is a parameter of the “FREL TOOL CR v.1”tool that can
be modified in the sheet “CARBON” (cells C6198 y C6200, respectively). For the
reference level under the FCPF Carbon Fund a value of 100 years was defined, which is
very conservative.
147

Non-forest categories and sub-categories

Permanent crops: In the case of permanent crops, highly variable values were found on the type of permanent
cultivation (i.e. banana, coffee, cocoa, etc). For that reason, an average mean was made on the different
carbon densities in relation to the area planted in 2000/2008 per data of the Ministry of National Planning and
Economic Policy (MIDELPLAN) (2009) reported in GFA, 201074. Said data was used in lieu of the agricultural
census of 2014 because they represent two points in time (2000 and 2008) that match with the reference
historical period (while the data in the agricultural census represent the condition in 2014).As a comparison,
the following table can be seen, in which the values for coffee and cocoa do not differ, while there are
differences for banana and annual crops. However, it must be noted that since there are no carbon densities
available for all the different cultivation classes (there are only data on the four classes in the table) the use is
not as relevant in one or another source since the data are being extrapolated from 50% of the cultivated area
into the remaining areas. Since at the beginning it was planned to use the values by defect of IPCC, the
matrixes on land use changes with the values of carbon stockss in the calculation sheets for “FREL TOOL CR
v.1” show activity data and carbon values in two sub-categories of permanent crops corresponding to the rank
of annual average precipitation(1000-2000 mm year-1 y > 2000 mm year-1). However, at the end, both subcategories were assigned the same values for carbon stockss since there were not data available to determine
the densities for both classes and the few data available did not indicate significant discrepancies.
Chart 8.3.7.Comparison of proportion values of area planted over the total given by MIDELPLAN (2009) and
obtained from GFA (2010) and the values given by the last agricultural census.
Level 2
Cultivation
Proportion of
mean cultivated
area 2000 and
2008
(MIDEPLAN,
2009)
Annual
Sugar cane
12%
18%
Coffee
23%
24%
Banana
10%
15%
Cocoa
1%
1%
Permanent
Proportion of
cultivated area
2014
(Agricultural
census 2014)

Grasslands. Carbon values found for grasslands include estimates relatively high for the deposit “aboveground
biomass” due to the presence of trees in many pastures in Costa Rica.

Settlements. No data were obtained for settlements, although it can be assumed that the carbon densities in
these areas are non-existent or almost non-existent.

Artificial and natural wetlands. No references were obtained to distinguish amongst these two types of
wetlands, so they were assigned the same carbon densities.

Other lands. Only data for moors was obtained. No values were found for bare lands, although it is expected
that the carbon densities in these areas be non-existent or almost non-existent.
74GFA
Consultinggroup (2010). Estudio del estado de la producción sostenible y propuesta de mecanismos permanentes para el
fomento de la producción sostenible. Consultoría SP-12-2009. 417 p.
148

Soil organic carbon (COS).Highly variable data was obtained, and for this reason it was considered it should
not be used, since there is not much information available that would be necessary to determine reliable
carbon densities (i.e. management, inputs, etc). Considering that there are estimates on carbon density in SOC
for forests, a possibility would be to use those values in combination with the factors of Level 1 of IPCC in nonforest categories. However, by the end of the study, it was decided to exclude the SOC from the reference
level, assuming that the exclusion of this deposit is conservative. In fact, as seen in the sheet “CARBON” of the
“FREL TOOL CR v.1” tool, in general there are no significant differences between the values of SOC for forests
and the values of SOC in non-forest categories, or those differences are on behalf of forests. In the case of
grasslands, they can have higher SOC values than forests in some cases, although (2008) concluded there were
no significant differences.

Harvested Wood products: Two wood product sources were considered:

Harvested Wood products originated from the conversion of forest lands: In this case, Harvested
Wood products have been considered in order to reduce estimates of emissions for deforestation,
since if part of the carbon in the forest is transferred to mid and long term duration Harvested Wood
products, the amount of oxidized carbon during the use change events (i.e. deforestation) is lower.
However, there are no statistics on the amounts of products cultivated originated in deforestation and
therefore it has been assumed that in all cases there is a prior use to a forest conversion. In order to
determine the biomass extracted, it has been assumed that 35% of the biomass is trees with a
diameter wider than 60 cm. This value has been obtained from Eguiguren-Velepucha (2013)75for a very
wet primary forest and the 60cm is the minimum limit for trees to be extracted in Costa Rica. For
secondary forests, it has been assumed that said value is 50% and the minimum diameter has been
reduced to 40 cm.Said value has also been obtained from Eguiguren-Velepucha (2013) for a very wet
secondary forest. The same proportion has been assumed for all types of forests except for “Palm
forests (Yolillales)”, since this type of forest do not contain many woody timber trees.
The calculations have been implemented in the sheet “CARBON” of the “FREL TOOL CR v.1”, in cells
Q15: T6053 as follows:
1.
The amount of aboveground biomass currently cultivated was estimated by applying the factors
estimated by Eguiguren-Velepucha (2013) as mentioned above.
2.
In order to translate aboveground biomass into merchantable volume, the estimated cultivated
aboveground biomass was divided by the conservative biomass expansion factor of 2, which is the
lower value in the Rank given in 2003 by LULUCF GPG for thick tropical forests.
3.
Since the biomass values in merchantable volume are at zero wetness, the transformation yields
of 0.7 have been applied to primary forests and 0.5 to plantations and secondary forests. These
values were obtained from FONAFIFO (2015) 76with a clarification on a consultation to expert
Oscar Santamaría.
4.
Assignment to types of product: The following step was assigning the wooden products to
different fractions of wooden products according to their mid-life (Table 19). For them, a
proportion of each type of product was estimated with regards to the total by using wood flow
data for year 2014 obtained from FINAFIFO study (2015).This study provides data on wood
volumes from their origin and up to their final use, so it was possible to determine the proportion
75Eguiguren-Velepucha,
P. A. 2013. The effects of forest interventions and the climate variability on the long term dynamics of
tropical forests in the North-East of Costa Rica.Turrialba (Costa Rica) : CATIE , 2013
76FONAFIFO, 2015. – Final Report – Increasing carbon stockss in wood and derived products in Costa Rica.
149
of the total volume that becomes a second transformation product, etc. This way, the amount of
carbon per type of product was calculated by type of product per the 4 fractions of Harvested
Wood products cultivated in the IPCC. The values are integrated into the “CARBON” sheet of the
“FREL TOOL CR v.1”, tool, in cells Q15: T6053.

Products extracted from forests under sustainable management of forest: In this case, they are
Harvested Wood products coming from primary forests managed and from Tree plantations, since
secondary forests are not managed yet in Costa Rica.
Due to the lack of data spatially explicit to estimate the activity data, it was decided to estimate the
absorptions apart due to products originated in forests under sustainable management of forest. For
this purpose, the statistics on wood commercialized in Costa Rica for the period 1998-2013 were
analyzed, as published by the Forestry National Office. These statistics include data of
commercialized wood coming from Tree plantations and forests managed (primary). It was intended
to access the original data on statistics and to broader series, but the only option was to obtain them
directly from the graphs of a technical report available through the Forestry National Office. There is
other information from the National System of Conservation Areas, but these are volume estimates
made in the field, while those of ONF use values of products consumed, and therefore are considered
more accurate.
In order to estimate the allocation to the different fractions of Harvested Wood products, the same
steps 3 and 4 of the previous case were applied. Once these values were obtained, the variations on
carbon stockss in Harvested Wood products cultivated were estimated in relation to input and decay.
For that, the mean equations described in Chapter 12, Volume 3 of IPCC 2006 were used.
The calculations are integrated in the sheet “PRODUCTS” of the “FREL TOOL CR v.1” tool, but at the
end it was decided to exclude them from the reference level due to the impossibility of linking the
carbon flow estimates associated to harvested Harvested Wood products products in sustainable
management of forest forest areas with the spatially explicit scope used to calculate all the carbon
flows included in the reference level and also due to the fact that the “sustainable management of
forest” activity was excluded from the reference level as well as the Tree plantations included under
the “new forests” category.
Non CO2gas emissions
As mentioned above, the emission factors include non-CO2gas emissions (methane and nitrous oxide) only for the
case of biomass burn associated to conversions from forest categories to non-forest categories.
The methods used to estimate non-CO2gas emissions are similar to the case of carbon emissions coming from
deforestation and degradation, when estimated through the combination of activity data (DA) by an emission
factor (FE). The activity data are expressed in terms of burnt areas (A) while the other emission factors are
estimated by multiplying the available fuel mass for (𝑀𝐵 ), a combustion factor that sets the amount of available
biomass amount that would burn (𝐶𝑓 ), and an emission factor to turn burnt dry matter values into GI amount values
(𝐺𝑒𝑓 ). The two last factors come from the IPCC tables since no local values were found for these parameters.
The equation used to do the calculations is the following:
𝐿𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑒 = 𝐴 ∙ 𝑀𝐵 ∙ 𝐶𝑓 ∙ 𝐺𝑒𝑓 ∙ 10−3 )
(7)
Where:
𝐿𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑒
Non-CO2gas emissions for biomass burning; t C ha-1
𝐴
Surface burnt; ha
150
𝑀𝐵
Fuel mass available for combustion;ton ha-1.
Includes biomass, litter and dead wood. When Level 1 methods are applied, it is then supposed that the
litter and dead wood deposits are equivalent to zero, with the exception of those cases in which land
use changes take place.
𝐶𝑓
Combustion factor; no dimension.
𝐺𝑒𝑓
Emission factor; g kg-1burnt dry matter.
In the case of “Mangroves” and of “Palm forests (Yolillales)”, it was assumed that there are no biomass burns when
those types of forest become non-forest categories. This, considering the high contents of water in this type of
forest.
The parameter of area burnt (A) used in the estimates of non-CO2emissions, is equivalent to the activity data used
to estimate the deforestation emissions multiplied by a conservative factor estimated by the IMN experts. This
conservative factor was included, considering that after the adoption of Forestry law 7575 the practice of burning
biomass in land use change gradually decreased. The supposed values for these conservative factors were
estimated for each historical period and reported in the preceding section and can also be seen in the sheet
“DECISIONS” of the “FREL TOOL CR v1.0”.
Finally, and always in order to obtain conservative estimates of non-CO2gas emissions for biomass burns, it was
assumed that in all cases there is use prior to the burn, with which the fuel available was calculated as the remnant
biomass after use. The methods used to estimate the volume of wood cultivated in conversions from forests to
non-forest categories is described in a separate report 77.
Emissions per hectare of non-CO2gas for biomass burns (without multiplying by the conservative factor estimated
by the IMN) are reported inTable 8.3.8. and in the sheet “CARBON” of the “FREL TOOL CR v.1”tool.The
multiplication with the conservative factors estimated by the IMN is done in columns L and M of sheets “FE AAAA”
of the “FREL TOOL CR v.1”.
Forest fires
Due to the insufficiency of good quality data to estimate non-CO2gas emissions associated to forest fires in forests
that remained forests for all the years of the historical series (1986-2013), or only for the years of the historical
period considered for the construction of the reference level (1996-2009), non-CO2gas emissions associated to
forest fires in forests that remained forests were excluded from the reference level. This also allows keeping
consistency with the decision of excluding the degradation and the increase of carbon stockss in primary forests
that remain primary forests.
77CDI,
2015.b. Reference level of forest emissions and absorptions of Costa Rica and methodology used to construct it.
Consultancy report prepared for the Government of Costa Rica under the Carbon Fund of the Forest Carbon Partnership (FCPF).
223 p.
151
Chart 8.3.8. Average values of carbon stockss estimated for each category, deposit and gas.
Notes: TF & TFC = Forest Lands and Lands Converted into Forest Lands; C = Crops: P = Grasslands; H = Wetlands; AU = Settlements; OT = Other Lands; SI = Without
Information. Bhp = Very wet and pluvial forests; Bh = Rain forests; Bs = Dry forests; Man = Mangroves; Bp-Y = Palm forests – Yolillales; bp = Primary forests; bn = new
forests; smf = without sustainable management of forest; cmf = with sustainable management of forest; i = intact; d = degraded; md = very degraded; int = intervened1
… 400 = age in years; an = annual; per = permanent; zll = rainy zone (> 2000 mm year-1); zh = wet zone (1000-2000 mm year-1); para = Moors; sd = bare lands; nat=
natural; art = artificial; BARA = Aboveground biomass; BNAA = Aerial Non-Arboreal Biomass; BARS = Underground Arboreal Biomass;BNAS = Underground NonArboreal Biomass; MMA = Underground Aerial Dead Wood; MMS = Underground Dead Wood; H = Litter; SOC = Soil organic carbon; PM.F1 = Harvested Wood
products, Fraction 1 (paper products);PM.F2 = Harvested Wood products, Fraction 2 (non-structural panels); PM.F3 = Harvested Wood products, Fraction 3 (structural
panels, veneer, plywood); PM.F4 = Harvested Wood products , Fraction 4 (sawmill wood);CO2= carbon dioxide; CH4 = Methane; N2O = Nitrous oxide.
CO2
Aboveground
Biomass
BP
cmf
Bhp
TF
&
TCF
BN
Bh
smf
BP
BS
smf
Belowground
biomass
Deadwood
Non-CO2 Gas
Litter
Soil C
Harvested Wood products: use
change crops
Total
Biomass burning
BARA
BNAA
BARS
BNAS
MMA
MMS
H
COS
PM.F1
PM.F2
PM.F3
PM.F4
CH4
N2 O
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Exclude
Include
Exclude
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
i
481.10
-
106.92
-
49.50
-
10.05
399.39
-
4.65
36.65
21.61
11.10
4.82
647.57
d
384.88
-
86.97
-
49.50
-
10.05
399.39
-
3.72
29.32
17.28
9.24
4.01
531.40
md
240.55
-
56.29
-
49.50
-
10.05
399.39
-
2.32
18.32
10.80
6.44
2.80
356.39
int
376.83
-
85.28
-
40.89
-
3.89
399.39
-
3.64
28.70
16.92
8.64
3.75
506.89
1
9.62
-
2.86
-
1.04
-
0.10
399.39
-
0.09
0.75
0.44
0.27
0.12
13.62
2
19.05
-
5.38
-
2.07
-
0.20
399.39
-
0.19
1.48
0.87
0.54
0.23
26.70
399
480.95
-
106.89
-
52.19
-
4.96
399.39
-
4.74
37.38
22.04
13.56
5.89
645.00
400
480.96
-
106.89
-
52.19
-
4.96
399.39
-
4.74
37.38
22.04
13.56
5.89
645.00
i
339.71
-
77.48
-
48.27
-
8.01
249.26
-
3.28
25.88
15.26
8.27
3.59
473.46
d
271.77
-
63.02
-
48.27
-
8.01
249.26
-
2.63
20.70
12.20
6.95
3.02
391.06
md
169.85
-
40.79
-
48.27
-
8.01
249.26
-
1.64
12.94
7.63
4.97
2.16
266.91
cmf
int
266.08
-
61.80
-
30.74
-
5.14
249.26
-
2.57
20.27
11.95
6.23
2.70
363.76
smf
1
10.57
-
3.12
-
1.22
-
0.20
249.26
-
0.10
0.82
0.48
0.31
0.13
15.11
smf
152
CO2
Aboveground
Biomass
bp
cmf
Bs
bn
bp
smf
smf
cmf
Man
bn
BpY
smf
bp
smf
smf
cmf
Belowground
biomass
Deadwood
Non-CO2 Gas
Litter
Soil C
change crops
Total
Biomass burning
BARA
BNAA
BARS
BNAS
MMA
MMS
H
COS
PM.F1
PM.F2
PM.F3
PM.F4
CH4
N2 O
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Exclude
Include
Exclude
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
2
20.81
-
5.84
-
2.40
-
0.40
249.26
-
0.21
1.62
0.95
0.60
0.26
29.45
399
339.71
-
77.48
-
39.25
-
6.56
249.26
-
3.35
26.40
15.57
9.83
4.27
462.99
400
339.71
-
77.48
-
39.25
-
6.56
249.26
-
3.35
26.40
15.57
9.83
4.27
462.99
i
225.58
-
53.04
-
28.23
-
11.37
245.12
-
2.18
17.18
10.13
5.56
2.41
318.22
d
180.46
-
43.14
-
28.23
-
11.37
245.12
-
1.74
13.75
8.10
4.68
2.03
263.21
md
112.79
-
27.92
-
28.23
-
11.37
245.12
-
1.09
8.59
5.07
3.37
1.46
180.31
int
176.69
-
42.31
-
21.19
-
8.53
245.12
-
1.71
13.46
7.93
4.31
1.87
248.72
1
0.00
-
0.00
-
0.00
-
0.00
245.12
-
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2
0.06
-
0.03
-
0.01
-
0.00
245.12
-
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
399
225.58
-
53.04
-
27.06
-
10.89
245.12
-
2.22
17.53
10.34
6.87
2.98
316.57
400
225.58
-
53.04
-
27.06
-
10.89
245.12
-
2.22
17.53
10.34
6.87
2.98
316.57
i
264.78
-
61.52
-
6.95
-
0.65
341.00
-
2.56
20.17
11.89
-
-
333.89
d
211.83
-
50.04
-
6.95
-
0.65
341.00
-
2.05
16.14
9.51
-
-
269.46
md
132.39
-
32.39
-
6.95
-
0.65
341.00
-
1.28
10.08
5.95
-
-
172.37
int
tCO2-e
ha-1
207.39
-
49.07
-
5.30
-
0.49
341.00
-
2.00
15.80
9.31
-
-
262.26
1
2.65
-
0.87
-
0.07
-
0.01
341.00
-
0.03
0.21
0.12
-
-
3.59
2
5.30
-
1.65
-
0.14
-
0.01
341.00
-
0.05
0.41
0.24
-
-
7.09
399
264.78
-
61.52
-
6.77
-
0.63
341.00
-
2.61
20.58
12.13
-
-
333.70
400
264.78
-
61.52
-
6.77
-
0.63
341.00
-
2.61
20.58
12.13
-
-
333.70
i
189.57
-
45.15
-
5.97
-
-
260.53
-
-
-
-
-
-
240.69
d
151.66
-
36.73
-
5.97
-
-
260.53
-
-
-
-
-
-
194.35
md
94.79
-
23.77
-
5.97
-
-
260.53
-
-
-
-
-
-
124.52
int
148.49
-
36.02
-
4.67
-
-
260.53
-
-
-
-
-
-
189.17
153
CO2
Aboveground
Biomass
bn
smf
C
per
zh
para
Soil C
change crops
Biomass burning
BARS
BNAS
MMA
MMS
H
COS
PM.F1
PM.F2
PM.F3
PM.F4
CH4
N2 O
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Exclude
Include
Exclude
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
1
1.90
-
0.64
-
0.06
-
-
260.53
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.59
2
3.79
-
1.21
-
0.12
-
-
260.53
-
-
-
-
-
-
5.12
399
189.57
-
45.15
-
5.97
-
-
260.53
-
-
-
-
-
-
240.69
400
189.57
-
45.15
-
5.97
-
-
260.53
-
-
-
-
-
-
240.69
-
83.5778
-
21.16
-
-
1
2.89
1.30
0.94
0.45
0.06
0.38
2
5.78
2.60
1.79
0.85
0.12
0.76
399
57.81
26.03
15.04
7.19
1.22
7.59
400
57.81
26.03
15.04
7.19
1.22
7.59
1
2.89
1.30
0.94
0.45
0.06
0.38
2
5.78
2.60
1.79
0.85
0.12
0.76
399
57.81
26.03
15.04
7.19
1.22
7.59
400
57.81
26.03
15.04
7.19
1.22
7.59
28.48
14.23
7.81
4.11
8.28
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
nat
-
-
-
-
-
-
art
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
126.87
-
31.13
-
-
AU
OT
Litter
BNAA
P
H
Deadwood
Total
BARA
an
zll
Belowground
biomass
Non-CO2 Gas
78
Note: the reason for this very high value for non-arboreal biomass is that it corresponds to biomass measured in sugar cane plantations by Jobse (2008). It is then assumed that the anual crops are
sugar cane plantations, which is conservative within the context of a REDD+ reference level.(Source: Jobse, J.2008. Impacts of Forest-to-Agriculture Conversion on Aboveground and Soil Carbon
and Nitrogen Stocks along a Bioclimatic Gradient in Costa Rica, Dissertation (PhD in Wildlife Sciences).208 p.).
154
CO2
Aboveground
Biomass
sd
SI
Belowground
biomass
Deadwood
Non-CO2 Gas
Litter
Soil C
change crops
Biomass burning
BARA
BNAA
BARS
BNAS
MMA
MMS
H
COS
PM.F1
PM.F2
PM.F3
PM.F4
CH4
N2 O
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Exclude
Include
Exclude
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
nat
-
-
-
art
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total
tCO2-e
ha-1
155
All of the technical elements presented and discussed above are summarized in the following table:
Description of the
parameter including the
forest class if applicable:
Average carbon contents per hectare in each category of land use
represented in the land use change matrixes.
Data unit (e.g. t CO2/ha):
t CO2/ha
SeeTable 8.3.8. and the sheet “CARBON” of “FREL TOOL CR v.1”
statistics, IPCC, scientific
literature) or description of
the assumptions, methods
and results of any
underlying studies that have
been used to determine the
parameter:
Forestry National Inventory and other studies published, prepared
at the national level. More details can be seen in the database in
Excel “CARBON DATABASE”.
National, considering the six categories of land use in IPCC,
divided in the sub-categories shown in land use change matrixes.
Discussion of key
uncertainties for this
parameter:
See section 12.
explanation of
assumptions/methodology
in the estimation:
See section 12.
Calculation of the average annual historical emissions over the Reference Period
The reference level was estimated, for all the activities included in the reference level, as the historical
average annual emissions and absorptions related to forests for the period 1996-2009 using the methods
and equations presented above.
All the data and calculations related to the reference level constructed can be reviewed in the “FREL TOOL
CR v.1” toll and described in higher detail in the separate technical documents mentioned in the preceding
sections of this ERDP version.
Figure 8.3.7graphically shows the emissions and absorptions related to forests estimated for the historical
series analyzed (1986-2013). As seen in that figure, the emissions for deforestation have considerable
decreased if compared with the annual emission average for the period prior to adopting Forestry Law No.
7575 with the average of the previous period. However, just after adopting the Forestry Law (1996), there is
an increase that is yet to be revised, but it is assumed it is related to the transition of the legal framework
156
while passing from a lax one to a more restrictive one and to the need of respecting further effects of the
preceding legal framework.
It must be mentioned that the activity data reported by Agresta et al.(2015.a) do not show an increase of
deforestation for the period 1998-2000 due to a calculation error of the annual activity data (see CDI,
2015.d79for a detailed discussion on this topic).
As it can also be seen in Figure 8.3.7, since 2001 there is a light trend on the increase of emissions for
deforestation. This trend has remained as of now and shows that the country needs to maintain and
strengthen its forest conservation and reduction programs through different instruments, amongst them,
payment for results
Figure 8.3.7. Historical emissions and absorptions related to forests in Costa Rica between 1986 and 2013,
in annual equivalent tons of carbon dioxide (tCO2-e year-1).
8.4. Upward or downward adjustments to the average annual historical emissions over
the Reference Period (if applicable)
No adjustments were applied to the average annual historical emissions over the reference period.
79CDI,
2015.d. Comparison of activity data of the historical series obtained by Agresta and the activity data used by the
NREF of the CR Report prepared for the Government of Costa Rica under the Carbon Fund of the Forest Carbon
157
8.5. Estimated Reference Level (preliminary)
ERPA term year t
Average annual historical
emissions from
deforestation over the
Reference Period (tCO2e/yr)
If applicable, average
annual historical
absorptions by sinks over
the Reference Period
(tCO2-e/yr)
Reference level for GHG
fluxes
(tCO2-e/yr)
2010
7,217,881
-4,422,008
2,795,873
2011
7,217,881
-4,422,008
2,795,873
2012
7,217,881
-4,422,008
2,795,873
2013
7,217,881
-4,422,008
2,795,873
2014
7,217,881
-4,422,008
2,795,873
2015
7,217,881
-4,422,008
2,795,873
2016
7,217,881
-4,422,008
2,795,873
2017
7,217,881
-4,422,008
2,795,873
2018
7,217,881
-4,422,008
2,795,873
2019
7,217,881
-4,422,008
2,795,873
2020
7,217,881
-4,422,008
2,795,873
2021
7,217,881
-4,422,008
2,795,873
2022
7,217,881
-4,422,008
2,795,873
2023
7,217,881
-4,422,008
2,795,873
2024
7,217,881
-4,422,008
2,795,873
2025
7,217,881
-4,422,008
2,795,873
8.6. Relation between the Reference Level, the development of a FREL/FRL for the
UNFCCC and the country’s existing or emerging GHG inventory
Consistency of the reference level with the GHG national inventory
As explained in Section 8.1., Costa Rica will update the reference level included in the ER-P according to the
2012 national GHG inventory to be presented at COP21 in Paris. This work is important to mantain
consistency with the information reported by the country to the COP under the UNFCCC. Costa Rica
anticipates certain changes in the reference level, especially in terms of EF and C pools. These changes will
be reflected in an updated report on the reference level to be sent to the FMT in January 2016 (Costa Rica
will submit its FREL/FRL to the UNFCCC Secretariat for technical review in January 4th, 2016). Updated
information on the reference level will be sent to the Carbon Fund soon afterwards.
Reference level consistency before the Convention
Costa Rica has not sbmitted a FREL/FRL to the UNFCCC Secretariat yet. The official submission will be
done before January 4th, 2016. After this date, Costa Rica will inform the Carbon Fund of the level of
consistency with the reference level presented in the ER-P.
158
9. Approach for Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting
9.1. Measurement, monitoring and reporting approach for estimating emissions
occurring under the ER Program within the Accounting Area
Measurement and report general scope
The monitoring of emissions in the forest sector will take placein a manner consistent with the reference
level.
Historical activity data generated for the construction of the reference levels were produced by applying a
processing protocol, classifying LANDSAT satellite images and implementing quality control procedures
(“quality control and quality assurance”) as described in Agresta et al (2015.a)80 and making map edits as
described in section 4 of CDI (2015.b).
This protocol for analyzing thesatellite images and editing maps will be applied biennially to measure and
report future activity data and in fact was already applied for 2011/12 and 2013/14 for the Biennial
UpdateReports and the monitoring reports required within the framework of a potential Payment for
Emission Reduction Agreement with the Carbon Fund.
The emission factors to be applied during the period of the Payment for Emission Reduction Agreement
were calculated through 2023 and will not need to be recalculated unless the country decides to update
them and therefore update the reference level during the period of the Agreement. If no changes take
place in the data used to estimate the emission factors before 2023, the emission factors for the years
2024 and 2025 will be calculated using the same data that is currently available by adding the required
calculation sheets to the calculation tool created to construct the reference level (“FREL TOOL CRv.1”).
The “FREL TOOL CR v.1” tool was created to serve many purposes, in particular to guarantee
transparency and consistency throughout time. In addition to having been designed as a tool to support
decision making for the selection of REDD+ activities (among others) and as a tool to calculate and report
annual emissions and absorptions for the full historical series (1986-2013) and to construct reference
levels, it was also used beforehand to calculate the different emission factors applicable up to the year
2023.The tool also includes the land use change matrixes that must be completed during the validity
period of the Payment for Emission Reductions Agreement of the FCPF Carbon Fund and a sheet
(“RESULTS”) where the results of the program and their associated uncertainties are calculated using the
Montecarlo method. By integrating all the data and calculations, the tool will enable the program results
to be reported in manner that is 100% consistent with the reference level.
As explained above, the calculation methods, equations and data used to measure and report the results
of the emission reductions program will be exactly the same as those used to construct the reference
level, except, of course, the activity data which are the only variable that must be measured and reported
until a decision is made to adjust the reference level as part of the process for continued improvement of
80Agresta,
Dimap, Universidad de Costa Rica, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 2015.a. Final Report: Generating a
consistent historical time series of activity data from land use change for the development of Costa Rica’s REDD plus
reference level:Methodological Protocol. Report prepared for the Government of Costa Rica under the Carbon Fund of
the Forest Carbon Partnership (FCPF). 44p.
159
data and methods. More details about the methods, equations and data can be found in CDI2015.b.
160
Parameter:
DAAAAA-AA
Description:
Activity data (DAAAAA-AA) of each category represented in
the landuse change matrixes “MC AAAA-AA” of the
“FREL TOOL CRv.1” tool.
Data unit:
hectares
Source of data or measurement/calculation
methods and procedures to be applied (e.g.
field measurements, remote sensing data,
national data, official statistics, IPCC
Guidelines, commercial and scientific
literature), including the spatial level of the
data (local, regional, national,
international) and if and how the data or
methods will be approved during the Term
of the ERPA
Frequency of monitoring/recording:
Monitoring equipment:
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
procedures to be applied:


Land-cover maps to be created on a biennial basis
for all of the accounting area
Land Use Change Matrixes (“MC AAAA-AA”) that
must be completed every 2 years in the “FREL
TOOL CR v.1”tool, starting in the year 2014/15.
Every two years.
Computers of the entityin charge of the MRV according to
the National Forest Monitoring System which is currently
in devlopment.
According to the protocol described in Agresta et al.
(2015.a)81that will be reviewed, improved and formalized
within the framework of the National ForestMonitoring
System that is currently in development.
Evaluations on the accuracy of the land-cover maps will
be performed, as was done for the most recent maps of
the historical series.
Identification of sources of uncertainty for
this parameter
Process for managing and reducing
uncertainty associated with this
parameter
The activity data are the largest source of uncertainty in
the reference level and will also be so in the program
results report. However, it will not be possible to reduce
the uncertainty associated with the activity data until a
better method becomes available to quantify them.
In preparation.
The “FREL TOOL CR v.1” tool contains, on the “CARBON” sheet, a listing of all the variable values and
81Agresta,
Dimap, Universidad de Costa Rica, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 2015.a. Final Report: Generating a
consistent historical time series of activity data from land use change for the development of Costa Rica’s REDD plus
reference level: Methodological Protocol.Report prepared for the Government of Costa Rica under the Carbon Fund of the
Forest Carbon Partnership (FCPF). 44 p.
161
parameters (including their source and associated level of uncertaint) that were used to calculate the
reference level. These values will not change during the term of the emission reductions program since any
change to any of them would imply changing the reference level (which the “FREL TOOL CR v.1” tool would
automatically calculate, and for this reason it is recommended that the Carbon Fund block all sheets of the
tool with passwords, except for those sheets where future activity data will be entered: from “MC 2015-16”
to “MC 2022-23”). If a change to the values of any of the parameters and variables that are not future activity
data becomes necessary, as part of the continued improvement process, it will be necessary to submit the
changed reference level to the Carbon Fund for consideration.
9.2. Organizational structure for measurement, monitoring andreporting
Organizational structure, responsibilities and competencies
There are roles and responsibilities defined in the State Forest Administration (National System of
Conservation Areas) and in the Ministry of the Environment and Energy for monitoring land use changes, the
emission factors and estimating and reporting emissions by sector (Chart 9.2.1.). The institutional
arrangements goberning the processes and forms of information management and estimate reporting have
not been formalized by the Government of Costa Rica. It is expected that these arrangements will be put in
place in the coming months and incorporated into a more advanced version of the Emission Reductions
Program document.
.
162
Chart 9.2.1. Institutional competencies and responsibilities for the measurement and reporting of national
forest resources and of the corresponding emissions.
Institution
State Forestry
Administration
National Fund for
Forest Financing
National System of
Conservation Areas
Responsibility for measurement
and sector reporting
Perform the inventory and the
assessment of forest resources in
country (paragraph h, Art. 6,
Forestry Law)
Establish the surveillance and control
of the resources assigned to the
Payment for Environmental Services
program (paragraph c, Art. 56 of the
Regulations to the Forestry Law)
Plan processes to achieve
sustainability in the management of
the natural resources of the country
(Art. 22, Biodiversity Law)
National Center of
GeoenvironmentalInfor
mation
Produce the official environmental
and geo-spatial information for the
Ministry of the Environment and
Energy (Ministry Guideline DM-4172015)
National
Meteorological
Institute
Official reporting entity before the
Convention and coordinator of the
national GHG inventory
Foreseen role for REDD+
measurement and reporting
Identical
Identical
Implement the national forest
inventory and ensure the of the
Natural Heritageof the State, as well
as monitoring the control strategies
for illegal logging and managing
forest fires
Identical
Identical
9.3. Relation and consistency with the National ForestryMonitoring System
Consistency with the national forest monitoring system
The forest monitoring system is in design and must be aligned with a larger effort that the Government
initiated, to establish a National Sytem to Monitor the Dynamics of LandCover and Land Use Change, in
such a manner as to define a consistent and robust technical-political framework for monitoring land use
change, including forests. This design process is lead by the National System of Conservation Areas under
the technical coordination of the National Center forGeo-environmental Information.
163
For the definition of the system, there is an institutional work plan that includes the following steps:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Identification of the needs for reporting and national and international consistency on the
subject of forest resources and other land uses.
Analysis f specific measurement and reporting variables based on national and international
needs and the development of applicable protocols for each modality of the information
system.
Definition of the measurement and reporting priorities for the system taking into account
existing capacities.
Proposal for a forest monitoring system that satisfies multiple measurement and reporting
priorities and requirements that is consistent with the national GHG inventory and the
specifics of REDD+
Institutional agreement for the forest monitoring system, including the roles and
responsibilities of the entities involved.
It is expected that this process will be finished during the first quarter of 2016.
9.4. Participation of other players in a variety of actions related to forest control and
monitoring

The national forest monitoring system, conceived as an official information system, must adhere in its
design and function to the current standards applicable to the processes of generating official
information, which are regulated by several corresponding entities: the National Geographic Institute
(IGN) and its national territorial information systems, the National Institute of Statistics and Census
(INEC) regarding data usage, etc. That is why in principle, community participation is not expected in
these systems, unless it becomes necessary at some points to fill gaps in the generation of data that
may involve these forms of participation.

However, the Emission Reduction Program envisions supporting measures that lead to robust
participation by communities and organizations in control actions related to forest resources. For
example, actions to strengthne the participation of communities in fire fighting have been
incorporated, through the so-called “Forest fire brigades” that are mainly composed of volunteers in
zones with high susceptibility to these phenomena. Efforts will also be made to strengthen the
“Natural Resources Monitoring Committees” (COVIRENAS) and the activities of the Volunteers
Association (ASVO), non-government entities that contribute through different activities coordinated
with the appropriate government agencies, monitoring compliance with government legislation, in the
first case, and in supporting the management of protected areas in the second.

In addition to this, the Colegio de Ingenieros Agrónomos (Agronomists Association) as the governing
entity of the “Certified Foresters” who are responsible for preparing and following-up on the
management plans of the different modalities of payment for environmental services agreements,
have an essential task in monitoring the beneficiaries´compliance with their respective commitments
or actions they have agreed to take with regard to conservation, restoration, reforestation or
management. In that same sense, there are many local and regional forestry producer organizations
that provide regency services to interested parties, and that have their capacities strengthened
164
through PES. It is envisioned to strengthen these capacities through different lines of work
incorporated in policies, actions and tasks of the PRE.
165
10. Displacement
10.1. Identification of risk of Displacement
No displacement risks were identified in the Emission Reduction Program, since the reference level, and the
measurement, report and verification are at the national scale. Any non-planned source of emission taking
place product of a policy, action or activity proposed in the Program will be accounted and incorporated as
part of the result in tCO2-e year-1. It is important to remember that the interventions proposed for the
Program have a global impact on emission reductions, internalizing any displacement.
Considering that degradation is not included in the reference level, there is a theoretical risk that the
activities designed to reduce deforestation may stimulate a change in the conduct of some deforestation
agents that might result in a higher level of emission for degradation of forests. This risk is considered
minimum in Costa Rica, considering that the activities of the emission reduction program are based mainly
on a strengthening of incentives instead than on coercive measurements. On the other hand, considering
that the use change is illegal in Costa Rica, it is unlikely that the deforestation agents of one reference
historical period might reach their goals by starting a degradation process. In fact, it is unlikely that the
productive activities that require open space to be implemented might be implemented under the shade of
trees.
However, Costa Rica acknowledges that the degradation of its forests is a topic that must be addressed,
and if possible, measured as part of the process of continued improvements.
10.2. ER Program design features to prevent and minimize potential Displacement
Considering that the displacement risk is considered low (see Section 10.1), the emission reduction
program does not include activities to prevent or minimize this type of risk.
166
11. Reversals
11.1. Identification of risk of Reversals
Definition of “reversal”
A “reversal” takes place when the following circumstances take place:

At the end of a measurement and report period annual emissions higher than the reference level are
reported;

In a prior measurement and report period emission reductions were verified and paid. In this case, it
would be considered that the emission reductions paid were reversed.
According to this definition, it is not possible consider a “reversal” the case of a measurement and report
period with annual emissions exceeding the reference level if in prior periods the country has not received
payment for results.
“Reversal” risk factors
There are two risk factor groups that can cause reversal:

Natural factors: Costa Rica is exposed to several types of natural disturbances that may cause loss in
forest areas of higher or lower importance. For that reason, the country does not want the results of its
emission reduction program be affected by high-scale natural event that no program could control.

Less intense natural disturbances are more frequent and cause small and diffuse impacts that cannot be
easily differentiated from the impacts caused by anthropogenic factors. Amongst them, the most
frequent are landslides and collapses that often take place in mountain areas of the country and maybe
some cases of forest fires caused by lightning. The emissions caused by this type of natural disturbance
were included in the reference level and will also be included in future measurement reports of the
program results.

On the other hand, there are larger natural disturbances that might occasionally cause significant
impact although their frequency is lower. Amongst them we can find: volcanic eruptions, earthquakes,
tsunamis and extreme climate events. Most of the impacts of this type of disturbance are easily
identifiable in the Landsat images and can be clearly separated from the impacts caused by
anthropogenic activities. For this reason, the impacts on forests caused by these natural disturbances
have been excluded from the reference level, following the steps described in section 4 of the CDI,
2015.b82, although they are transparently reported. The same will be done in future reports on the
measurement of the program results. Therefore, emissions clearly attributable to natural disturbances
are not considered a reversal risk, since they are excluded from the reference level and from the
calculation of future emissions of the program, in a transparent and verifiable way.
82CDI,
2015.b. Reference level of forest emissions and absorptions in Costa Rica before the FCPF Carbon Fund:
methodology and results. Report prepared for the Costa Rican Government under the Carbon Fund of the Forest
Carbon Partnership (FCPF). 223 p.
167

Anthropogenic factors: The evolution of national and international circumstances in a way that the
country forest cover might suffer negative impacts generating GHG emissions that could not be
stopped by the emission reduction program cannot be discarded. These factors include the increase of
population dependent on agricultural activities for their income, a significant increase of agricultural
product prices, an important reduction of the ability of the State to control and enforce the law, etc.
11.2. ER Program design features to prevent and mitigate Reversals
Costa Rica’s Forestry Law in force contains a prohibition of changing land use. Article 19 of the Law reads:
“In lands covered by forest, land use change will not be allowed, nor to establish Tree plantations…”. Due to
its nature, this is the main measurement to prevent reversals in those forests conserved and regenerated in
country. In order to strengthen the implementation of the law, the National System of Conservation Areas
has control mechanisms such as the illegal clearing control strategy, as well as regular operations in roads
and the functioning of multiple geographical information systems83. This is the strongest measurement
against reversals; however, recognizing that the country still experiences deforestation, the policies,
actions and activities constitute a strong component on illegal clearing control, as well as community
control through the participative volunteer committees.
11.3. Reversal management mechanism
Selection of Reversal management mechanism
Costa Rica proposes the mechanism to handle reversals described as follows.
Reversal management mechanism
Selected
(Yes/No)
Option 1:
The ER Program has in place a Reversal management mechanism that is substantially
equivalent to the Reversal risk mitigation assurance provided by the ER Program CF
Buffer approach
SI
Option 2:
ERs from the ER Program are deposited in an ER Program -specific buffer, managed by the
Carbon Fund (ER Program CF Buffer), based on a Reversal risk assessment.
No
For option 1, explanation of Reversal management mechanism
In case of a reversal (per the definition given in Section 11.1), Costa Rica proposes compensating the t of
CO2-e reversed by overruling an equivalent number of tons of CO2-e in its unpaid emission reduction
reserve (“buffer”), while the supplies last. If this was not enough to compensate the reversals, Costa Rica
proposes not to receive any additional payments until non-compensated reversals are voided with emission
reductions of subsequent periods.
Costa Rica can start its emission reduction program under the FCPF Carbon Fund with a positive balance in
its emission reductions reserve or “buffer”. In fact, its emission reduction program started on January 01,
2010 and by the end of 2013, the program had already produced 8,889,739 tons of CO2-e in emission
83www.sirefor.go.cr
168
reductions (see Section 2.2), out of which 8,534,150 t CO2-e would be available after the discounts for
uncertainty per the criteria of the Methodological Framework of the FCPF Carbon Fund (see Section 13.1).
Taking into account that the FCPF Carbon Fund may not allow payments for results for emission reductions
produced before the signature of the ERPA, it is proposed that the emission reductions that the country
generated in its public lands between o1.01.2010 and 12.31.2012 (i.e. 32% of the total emission reductions,
equaling 2,044,137 t CO2-e, after the discount of uncertainty) be used as a “buffer” reserve to compensate
eventual future reversals of emission reductions compensated under the FCPF Carbon Fund. This amount
of emission reductions corresponds to 20% of the emission reductions forecasted in public lands until 2025
(see Section 13.1, showing a table with calculated values). The reserve to compensate future eventual
reversals could be directly managed by the country or be deposited in the “buffer” of the Carbon Fund (ER
Program CF Buffer), as agreed in the ERPA.
It must be highlighted that between 01.2013 and 12.31.2016 some 2,519,826 t CO2-e of emission reductions
would be produced in public lands (already adjusted by the deduction for uncertainty). These emission
reductions – out of which 27.25% correspond to emission reductions of year 2013, have been achieved –
would be available for the country to dispose of them as it may consider it appropriate, including their
possible inclusion in a payment for results agreement, either with the FCPF Carbon Fund or another entity.
For option 2, explanation of Reversal management mechanism
N/A.
11.4. Monitoring and reporting of major emissions that could lead to Reversals of ERs
Per the definition in Section 11.1, reversals will be detected by comparing the annual average emissions in
a measurement and report period with the reference level. The interpretation of results in this comparison
will be done as follows:

If the annual average emissions reported for a measurement and report period are lower than the
reference level, it will considered that no reversals took place and the country might receive payment
for results, unless it is necessary to still compensate for reversals of prior periods, in which case the
payment will only be made for the difference between the emission reductions achieved in the period
and the reversions to compensate from prior periods.

If the annual average emissions reported for a measurement and report period exceed the reference
level and the country did not receive any payment for results in prior periods, it will also be considered
that no reversals took place but the country will receive no payment for results.

If the annual average emissions reported for a measurement and report period exceed the reference
level and the country received payments for results in prior years, it will then be considered that the
emissions exceeding the reference level reversed a number of CO2-e tons equivalent to the number of
tons paid. In this case:

If the emissions over the reference level exceed the tons paid, only the tons paid will be considered
reversals and the country will have to compensate, by applying the mechanisms explained in Section
11.3, only for the tons issued exceeding the reference level that are equivalent to the number of tons
169
paid in prior years. Subsequently, the country may again have access to payments for results if it
reports annual average emissions below the reference level.

If the emissions over the reference level are lower than the tons paid, only the tons over the reference
level will be considered reversals and the country will compensate them by applying the mechanisms
explained in Section 11.3, all the tons emitted over the reference level. Subsequently, the country may
again have access to payments for results if it reports annual average emissions lower than the
reference levels.
170
12. Uncertainties of the calculation of emission reductions
12.1. Identification and assessment of sources of uncertainty
Considering that the historical and future emissions are calculated by combining activity data and emission
factors, the two big sources of uncertainty are in fact those related to activity data and to emission factors:
1.
Activity Data: The uncertainties of the activity data come from the uncertainties associated to the
land use maps production process from which the activity data are obtained. Per GOFC-GOLD
REDD Sourcebook84 the possible sources of uncertainty would be the quality of satellite data,
interoperability of the different sensors, image processing, cartographic and thematic standards,
location and co-registration, the interpreting procedure, and the post-processing. All these sources
can generate systematic and random errors, being controlled by standard operation procedures
(as required by indicator 8.1 of the methodological framework of the FCPF) and the second ones
being partially compensated. The aggregate of all these uncertainty sources can be directly
estimated in the final product through an accuracy analysis by suing reference data.
In the case of the reference level, as indicated in Section 12.2, an analysis of accuracy was made on
several land use maps and an analysis of the land-cover change map 2001/02 – 2011/12. The
analysis of accuracy showed an underestimate of the deforested area and of the new forest area
(26% and 51% respectively), which was determined with an accuracy of 22% and 20% respectively,
even though the estimated deforestation area was not far from being significantly different, not in
the case of new forests, for which the overestimation is clear. Therefore, the activities of carbon
stocks increases in new forests and of deforestation show a relative uncertainty of 20-22% due to
the activity data, while the forest conservation activity will present an uncertainty of 4%.
2.
Emission factors: Considering that the emission factors are calculated as the difference between
two estimates of average carbon stockss per hectare, what determines the uncertainty of the
emission factors is, mainly, the uncertainty associated to the carbon stocks estimates in each
deposit. This, on the other hand, depends on several factors, including (Cunia 1987)85: the
measurement errors (biometric or estimate variables of basic density, for instance), the prediction
error of the allometric model (uncertainty of the model parameters), and the sampling error. The
uncertainties of different parameters used to estimate the emissions a fraction of carbon should be
added as well. As indicated in Section 8, to estimate carbon stockss, because there were not gross
data from different sources available, it was only possible to consider the statistical uncertainty
reported for each source. Said statistical uncertainty only takes into consideration the sampling
error. Therefore, the current version of the reference level only considers said error source along to
the uncertainty of the parameters (constant) used to determine the emissions. As it can be seen
inTable 12.2.15, the uncertainties (error relative to 90% of trust) of carbon stockss vary from 1% to
84
GOFC-GOLD. 2014. REDD Sourcebook COP 20. Page 118.
T. 1987. Error of forest inventory estimates: its main components. In E.H. Whraton & T. Cunia, eds., Estimating
tree biomass regressions and their error. Proceedings of the workshop on tree biomass regression functions and their
contribution to the error of forest inventory estimates, May 26–30, 1986, Syracuse, N.Y. – Part E. Broomall, PA, USA,
USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report no. NE-117, pp. 1–14. 34, 39,
46, 184
85Cunia,
171
148%. The uncertainty on the BARA reservoir (main reservoir) in forests does not exceed 22%
being applicable to forests other than Mangrove and Yolillal, and 8% to 90% trust level. However,
in case of deforestation activity, this high precision is diluted when combining it with very
inaccurate values for the categories of crops, which present values of 71% in the case of permanent
crops.
Considering the foregoing, it can be proved that the conservation activity of forest has a final positive effect
since the uncertainty of the activity data (4%) and of the stocks (8-22%) at 90% trust level is too low. In
contrast, the activities of carbon stocks increases in new forests and deforestation show high uncertainties
because of the uncertainties of the activity data (22% and 20% respectively) and the very high uncertainties
of non-forest classes (BARA of 71% in the case of permanent crops).
To improve the accuracy of future estimates, the following areas can be already identified as priority for the
process of continued process:


Priority 1: Sources with a larger impact n global uncertainty.
o
New forests activity data: This class shows a very high uncertainty as it can be seen in the
preceding results. As indicated in Section 8.3, Tree plantations and secondary forests
were merged because the maps produced for said categories were not reliable. This is an
indication of the lack of accuracy in these categories.
o
Carbon stockss in non-forest categories. The uncertainties of non-forest categories for the
BARA and BARS reservoirs are very high (>50%). It will be necessary to complete the data
available at this moment with more data in order to reduce the uncertainties.
Priority 2: Sources with lower impact on the global uncertainty.
o
Dead wood: Dead wood presents very high uncertainties in all cases, being Yolillales the
highest with 100% and over 50% in dry forests and grasslands. Even though the global
uncertainty impact is lower since it is a reservoir that proportionally has little carbon, it
will be necessary to collect more data to reduce associated uncertainties.
o
Non-CO2 – N2O gases: The uncertainties on N2O emissions are higher than 100%
practically in all cases. In comparison, this source of emissions is lower, but a reduction of
associated uncertainties should be sought, basically passing by the taking of data for the
production of specific emission factors for the country or the region.
12.2. Quantification of uncertainty in Reference Level setting
Uncertainty of land-cover maps and of the activity data
To assess the uncertainty for activity data, the accuracy of land-cover maps was estimated as well as the
accuracy of land use change matrixes. Due to the limited availability of control data to assess the
uncertainties, the accuracy analysis of land-cover maps was limited to the maps of years 1985/86, 2001/02
and 2012/13 and to the accuracy analysis of the activity data to the matrix for period 2002-2012, which is a
combination of the maps for 2001/02 and 2012/13.
172
The methods used to perform the uncertainty analysis and the results obtained are fully described in
section 7 of the CDI report (2015.b)86. The data used for assessing the accuracy are shown inTable
12.2.1.and in Figure 12.2.1.
86 CDI,
2015.b. Reference level of forest emissions and absorptions in Costa Rica and methodology used to construct it.
Report prepared for the Government of Costa Rica under the Carbon Fund of the Forest Carbon Partnership (FCPF).
223p.
173
Chart 12.2.1. Sampling design applied to the assessment of the MCS uncertainty for years 1985/86, 2000/01
and 2012/13.
Land-cover
maps
Sampling
design
1985/86
NO
5,396 control points. Said control points were developed by INBIO for the
elaboration and verification of the maps generated within the framework of the
project “Lessons learned and development of capacities to apply REDD+
initiatives, Costa Rica’s experience.” CATIE gave Agresta these points and the
meth-data were not complete; therefore, there is no evidence that a
statistically robust sampling design was applied.
2000/01
NO
7,463 control points. Said control points were developed by INBIO for the
elaboration and verification of the maps generated within the framework of the
project “Lessons learned and development of capacities to apply REDD+
initiatives, Costa Rica’s experience.” CATIE gave Agresta these points and the
meth-data were not complete; therefore, there is no evidence that a
statistically robust sampling design was applied.
2012/13
NO
8,536 control points compiled by Agresta as part of the consultancy
“Generating a consistent historical time series of activity data from land use
change for the development of Costa Rica’s REDD plus reference level”. These
control points were compiled by uniting the control points developed by INBio
and the control points for year 2012/13, validated in the field, developed by
SINAC within the framework of the preparation of the forest type maps of
Costa Rica. There is no evidence that a statistically robust sampling design was
applied since two different sources were combined that would have used
different designs in its case.
2012/13bis
*
YES
The map for 2012/13 marks some 9,208 control points obtained from a
compilation made by the National Meteorological Institute in 2013 and 2014.
The sampling design applied was a stratified random sampling using a land use
map for the stratification criteria, generated by the Institute for 2013.
Explanation
Note: There are two analyses for the land-cover map 2012/13 with two independent databases; the
second of these analyses is identified as 2012/13bis.
174
Figure 12.2.1.Spatial distribution of control points used for the analyses of uncertainty of MCS and activity
data.
The assessment of land-cover maps accuracy was only performed for the “forest” and “non-forest”
categories, with the exception of year 2013bis in which uncertainty values were also reported for six
categories of the IPCC. The results are shown in the following tables.
Chart 12.2.2. Accuracy indicators of the land-cover map 1985/86
Class
User Accuracy
(#)
Trust interval at
90% (#)
Producer accuracy
(#)
Trust level at 90%
(#)
Bosque
0.87
0.87 - 0.88
0.94
0.94 - 0.95
No Bosque
0.90
0.89 - 0.91
0.80
0.79 - 0.82
Total Accuracy
(#)
Trust interval at
90% (#)
0.89
0.88 - 0.89
175
Chart 12.2.3. Adjusted areas and their trust intervals for land-cover map 1985/86.
Error
Error
relative to relative to
the 90% of the 90% of
significance significance
level (ha)
level (%)
Class
Estimated
area (ha)
Adjusted
area (ha)
Forest
3,187,714
2,963,325
35,274
Non-forest
1,810,861
2,035,250
35,277
Trust interval at 90%
(ha)
Does it
contain the
estimated
area?
1%
2,928,051 – 2,998,600
NO
2%
1,999,973 – 2,070,527
NO
Chart 12.2.4. Accuracy indicators of land cover map 2001/02.
Class
User Accuracy (#)
Trust level at 90%
(#)
Producer Accuracy
(#)
Trust interval at
90% (#)
Forest
0.86
0.85 - 0.86
0.96
0.96 - 0.97
Non-forest
0.95
0.94 - 0.95
0.80
0.79 - 0.81
Total Accuracy (#)
Trust level at 90%
(#)
0.89
0.89 - 0.9
Error
Error
relative to
relative to
90% of the 90% of the
level (ha)
level (%)
Class
Estimated
area (ha)
Adjusted
area (ha)
Forest
3,071,471
2,727,788
29,895
Non-forest
1,927,105
2,270,788
29,894
(ha)
Does it
contain the
estimated
area?
1%
2,697,893 – 2,757,683
NO
1%
2,240,894 – 2,300,681
NO
Chart 12.2.6. Accuracy indicators of land-cover map 2012/13.
Class
User Accuracy (#)
Trust interval at
90% (#)
Producer Accuracy
Trust interval at
90% (#)
Bosque
0.88
0.87 - 0.89
0.97
0.97 - 0.98
No Bosque
0.96
0.96 - 0.97
0.83
0.82 - 0.84
Total accuracy (#)
Trust interval at
90% (#)
0.91
0.91 - 0.92
176
Chart 12.2.7. Adjusted areas and their trust intervals for land-cover map 2012/13
Error
Error
relative to
relative to
90% of the 90% of the
(ha)
level (ha)
level (%)
Does it
contain
the
estimated
area?
Class
Estimated
area (ha)
Adjusted
area (ha)
Forest
3,134,027
2,838,197
27,142
1%
2,811,055 – 2,865,340
NO
Non-forest
1,864,549
2,160,378
27,141
1%
2,133,237 – 2,187,519
NO
The results of the accuracy analysis for land-cover map 2012/13 by using the control points of the National
Meteorological Institute (i.e. land-cover maps 2012/2013bis) are shown in the following tables.
Chart 12.2.8. Accuracy indicators of land-cover map2012/13.
Class
User Accuracy (#)
Trust interval at
90% (#)
Producer accuracy
(#)
Trust interval at
90% (#)
Forest
0.76
0.75 - 0.77
0.95
0.95 - 0.96
Non-forest
0.94
0.93 - 0.94
0.70
0.69 - 0.71
Total Accuracy (#)
Trust level at 90%
(#)
0.82
0.82 - 0.83
Class
Estimated
area (ha)
Adjusted
area (ha)
Error
relative to
90% of the
significance
level (ha)
Error
relative to
90% of the
significance
level (%)
Trust interval at
90% (ha)
Does it
contain the
estimated
area?
Forest
3134027
2494173
37409
1%
2456765 - 2531582
NO
Non-forest
1864549
2504402
37404
1%
2466998 - 2541806
NO
Considering the errors matrix with the six categories of IPCC, it is observed that the total accuracy is lower,
due to the fact that the grassland user accuracy is reduced, which have led to confusion with the Crops
class.
177
Chart 12.2.10. Accuracy indicators of land-cover map2012/13 considering the land use IPCC categories.
Trust level at 90%
(#)
Producer
Accuracy
(#)
Trust level at 90%
(#)
0.76
0.75 - 0.77
0.90
0.9 - 0.91
0.97
0.97 - 0.98
0.31
0.3 - 0.32
Grasslands
0.36
0.34 - 0.39
0.88
0.86 - 0.9
Settlements
0.94
0.9 - 0.99
0.91
0.85 - 0.96
Wetlands
0.81
0.71 - 0.91
0.19
0.17 - 0.22
Other lands
0.45
0.41 - 0.49
0.48
0.41 - 0.55
Total Accuracy (#)
Trust interval at
90% (#)
0.69
0.68 - 0.69
Class
User Accuracy
(#)
Forest
Crops
With regards to the areas, the conclusions are similar to the preceding, even though there are very
significant differences with the cultivation classes and grassland classes. While the Cultivation class has
been underestimated, the grassland class has been overestimated.
Chart 12.2.11.Adjusted areas and their trust intervals for land-cover map 2012/13 considering the land use
IPCC categories.
Class
Forest
Crops
Grasslands
Settlements
Wetlands
Other lands
Total
Error
Error
Does it
relative to relative to
contain
Estimated Adjusted
Trust level at 90%
90% at the 90% at the
the
areas (ha) area (ha)
(ha)
estimated
level (ha)
level (%)
area?
3,134,027
2,631,342
41,812
2%
2,589,530 – 2,673,153
NO
529,136
1,651,142
42,851
3%
1,608,291 – 1,693,993
NO
1,190,835
494,132
28,839
6%
465,292 – 522,971
NO
46,999
48,970
37,88
8%
45,181 – 52,758
YES
24,867
104,641
13,508
13%
91,133 – 118,149
NO
72,712
68,350
9,701
14%
58,649 – 780,50
YES
4,998,575
4,998,575
It must be stated that the Methodological Framework of the FCPF Carbon Fund or the IPCC specify
minimum thresholds of accuracy to be reached in the land-cover maps and activity data. To obtain an
indication on the acceptability of the accuracy levels found per recognized international standards, the
estimated accuracy values were compared to the minimum accuracy values required for jurisdictional and
Nested REDD+ procedures of the Verified Carbon Standard. In conclusion, the maps of all the assessed
periods would be in accordance with the JNR requirements of the VCS since the full accuracy in forest/nonforest classification was always higher than at least 75%.
178
Regarding the accuracy of activity data in the land use change matrixes, the results of the assessment show
quite high total accuracy values (0.85) although this is due mainly to the high accuracy in the stable
categories. The categories that changed show reduced accuracies, under 0.6, which indicates a pretty high
uncertainty of the activity data (Chart 12.2.12).
Chart 12.2.12.Accuracy statistics for cover changes in land-cover map2001/02 and land-cover map 2011/12.
Class
User Accuracy (#)
Trust level at 90%
(#)
Producer Accuracy
(#)
Trust level at 90%
(#)
Deforestation
(Forest to NonForest)
0.62
0.49 - 0.75
0.49
0.38 - 0.6
New forests
(Non-Forest to
Forest)
0.75
0.64 - 0.86
0.50
0.4 - 0.6
Stable forest
(Forest remaining
Forest)
0.88
0.84 - 0.91
0.94
0.92 - 0.96
Stable non-forest
(Non-Forest
remaining NonForest)
0.85
0.81 - 0.89
0.84
0.8 - 0.87
Total Accuracy (#)
Trust interval at
90% (#)
0.85
0.83 - 0.87
Regarding the adjusted areas, the results are similar. While there is an underestimation of the stable forest
area and of the consistency of non-stable forest areas, the deforestation areas and the new forests show
new biases and significant uncertainties. The deforestation during the period analyzed has been
underestimated in 26% (with a relative error of 22% at the 90% trust level) mean while new forests have
been underestimated in 51% (with a relative error of 20% at the 90% trust level). Keeping the relative errors
in mind, it is very feasible that the deforestation bias could have been substantially reduced with an
increase of the sample numbers, while new forests have been underestimated in at least 31%, which is very
significant.
Chart 12.2.13.Adjusted areas and their trust intervals for the cover change between land-cover map
2001/02 and land-cover map2011/12 considering the forest and non-forest change categories.
179
Class
Deforestation
(Forest to NonForest)
New forests
(Non-Forest to
Forest)
Estimated
area (ha)
222,418
208,162
Adjusted
area (ha)
280,602
314,796
Bias
(%)
26%
51%
Error relative at
90% of the
significance
level (ha)
63,086
64,028
Error relative at
90% of the
significance
level (%)
Trust
confidence
at 90%
(ha)
Does it
contain the
estimated
area?
22%
217,516
–
343,688
SI
20%
250,768
–
378,824
NO
NO
SI
Stable forest
(Forest remaining
Forest)
2,848,954
2,661,103
-7%
101,885
4%
2,559,218
–
2,762,989
Non-stable forest
(Non-Forest
remaining NonForest)
1,718,880
1,741,912
1%
99,201
6%
1,642,710
–
1,841,113
The uncertainty analyses of land-cover maps and of the activity data presented above are valid as well for
the activities “forest carbon stocks increase” and “forest carbon stocks conservation” so they will not be
repeated in the following sections, with regards to the reference level for those two activities.
Uncertainty of emission factors
Considering that the emission factors are calculated as the difference between two average carbon stockss
estimates per hectare, what determines the uncertainty of the emission factors is, in essence, the
uncertainty associated to the carbon stocks estimates in each deposit. It depends on several factors,
including the following (Cunia 1987)87:

Measurement error: The measurement error differs from statistical errors in that measurement
error is the difference between the actual value and the computed value for a sampling unit. Said
error has a random component and a systematic one. While the first one will tend to zero as the
sampling units are measured (i.e. errors are compensated), the second one is more important and
is hard to quantify. The only way of reducing it, as indicated by 2006 IPCC 88, is establishing a
quality assurance/quality control plan (QA/QC). In the case of the establishment of sufficient
controls, it can be assumed that said systematic part is also zero although some studies such as
Chave et al. (2004)89state that the measurement error can be equal to 16% considering the error of
heights, diameters and measurement of basic densities.
87Cunia,
T., 1987. Error of forest inventory estimates: its main components. In E.H. Whraton & T. Cunia, eds., Estimating
tree biomass regressions and their error. Proceedings of the workshop on tree biomass regression functions and their
contribution to the error of forest inventory estimates, May 26–30, 1986, Syracuse, N.Y. – Part E. Broomall, PA, USA,
USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report no. NE-117, pp. 1–14. 34, 39,
46, 184
88 Capítulo 3, Volumen 1, 2006 IPCC.
89 Chave, J., Condit, R., Aguilar, S., Hernandez, A., Lao, S. & Perez, R., 2004. Error propagation and scaling for tropical
forest biomass estimates. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B Biol. Sci., 359(1443): 409–420. 40, 46, 50
180

Allometric model error: In general, biomass above the land is not measured directly; variable
biometrics on the vegetation that serve as the entry in a model that estimates biomass are
measured. In this case, there are also two possible errors: the error associated to the selection of
the model; the error associated to the prediction of said model. The first type of error consists in
the fact that there are several models available to estimate the biomass which contributes with
estimates that can have wide differences. This error may have very high values as indicated by
Van Breugel et al. (2011)90 who obtained associated errors between 5 and 35% depending on the
model selected to do the estimate. The second class of errors is the uncertainty associated to the
prediction of the model that according to Picard et al. (2013)91 depends on two factors: the
sampling plan and the estimator. This way, two sampling plans or two different estimators will
throw different estimates keeping identical the rest of the factors.

Sampling error: The sampling error must be added to the measurement and prediction errors
mentioned above; this one is used to perform the inference to estimate the biomass/carbon at the
level of the area of interest. This error depends 92of: a) the sampling design; b) the size of the
sampling; c) the type of estimator used; d) the variability inherent between the sampling units.
This sampling error is the only error that is usually reported in the studies.
The Methodological Framework of the FCPF Carbon Fund does not clearly indicate what errors must be
considered in the assessment of the accuracy of the emission factors. IPCC 2006 guidelines, on the other
hand, contain a description of good practices in the calculation and consideration of the uncertainties, but
do not include either a clear requirement of what sources of uncertainties should be considered.
As stated above, for the estimate of carbon stockss the IFN values were used as well as other sources with
quantified uncertainties. Said uncertainties, in all cases, were statistical uncertainties associated to the
sampling and did not consider the measurement uncertainties or the uncertainties of the allometric models
applied.
With these premises, the uncertainty analysis was made as follows:
1.
Uncertainty estimate of entry parameters: First of all, the entry parameters in the calculation sheet
were estimated; these are the values obtained from the bibliography that serve as entry
parameters for the equations used to estimate the carbon contents. In this case, the estimate of
uncertainties was made by following the IPCC guidelines (Chapter 2, Volume 1 of IPCC GL 2006).
The uncertainties described in the different publications or determined from the forest inventory
data were identified, and in case of the combination of values from different sources, the error
spread was made following Method 1 of the IPCC guidelines for the spreading of uncertainties.
This means, in the case of a sum of two parameters𝑥and𝑦, it was considered that their
uncertainties 𝜎𝑥 y 𝜎𝑦 would be combined with the root of the sum of the squares:
Uncertainty (𝑥 + 𝑦) = √𝜎𝑥 + 𝜎𝑦 .
(8)
90
Van Breugel, M., Ransijn, J., Craven, D., Bongers, F. & Hall, J.S., 2011. Estimating carbon stocks in secondary forests:
Decisions and uncertainties associated with allometric biomass models. For. Ecol. Manag., 262(8): 1648–1657. 40, 43,
46, 50
91
Picard N., Saint-André L., Henry M., 2012. Manual for building tree volume and biomass allometric equations:
from field measurement to prediction. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, and Centre de
Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement, Montpellier, 215 pp.
92
Introducción - Cunia, T. 1987.
181
In case of a multiplication of parameters𝑥and𝑦, it was considered that their uncertainties𝜎𝑥 y 𝜎𝑦 ,
would be combined with the following equation:
𝜕𝑓
Uncertainty (𝑥 * 𝑦) = √[
𝜕𝑥
𝜕𝑓
𝜎𝑥 ] + [
𝜕𝑦
𝜎𝑦 ].
(9)
These equations are equivalent to those indicated in Chapter 2 of Volume 1 of IPCC GL 2006.
The uncertainties of said parameters are shown in sheet “4.Parameters Table” of Excel file
“CARBON DATABASE”. These uncertainties refer to the calculations of uncertainties performed in
sheet “3.Carbon Densities” of the same file.
2.
Estimate of the uncertainty of carbon stockss: The same equations from above (8 and 9) were
applied to calculate all the parameters used in the equations used to estimate carbon stockss. This
allowed estimates for each category estimated for each land use category. The aggregate or
propagation of uncertainties was done by following Method 1 of the IPCC guidelines mentioned
above.
The uncertainties spread for each category and carbon deposit are reported at the end of the sheet
“CARBON” of the “FREL TOOL CR v.1” tool between cells Y15: AN6053.
3.
Correction of carbon stocks estimates with high level of uncertainty: According to the
requirements of JNR of VCS93, carbon stocks estimates must be adjusted in a conservative
sense94when the estimate of the relative error exceeds 20% of the estimate average at the 90%
trust level or the 30% to 95% of the trust level.
The tool “FREL TOOL CR v.1” allows applying the corrections required by the VCS when the
relative error exceeds 20% of the estimated average value at 90% of the trust level. These
corrections are automatically done in the sheet “CARBON” (between cells AP15: BD6053)when
the option “VCS” is selected in the cell “B49” in the sheet “DECISIONS”; while they do not
take place if the option “IPCC” is selected (this is the option selected in the context of the
construction of the reference level under the FCPF Carbon Fund).
The equations to be applied to correct carbon stocks estimates with an uncertainty level higher
than 20% to 90% of the trust level differ in case the carbon stocks estimates are used for the
reference level or for the calculation and report of results of the emission reduction program.

In the case of emission factors estimated for the reference level, the correction required by VCS is
calculated as follows:
Si:
𝐶𝐼𝐶 (𝐶𝑆)
𝐶𝐼𝐶𝑘 (𝐶𝑆)
⁄𝐶 (𝐶𝑆) > 0.10 𝐶′𝑘 (𝐶𝑆) = (1 − 𝑘(𝐶𝑆) + 0.10) × 𝐶𝑘 (𝐶𝑆)
𝐶𝑘
𝑘
(10)
93
Section 3.14.12 (4) of VCS-JNR, v3.2 of October 20, 2014.
the context of the reference level, the adjustments must be made downwards in the case of carbon stocks values
estimated for the forest categories, and upwards in case of carbon stocks values for non-forest categories, with the
exception of the case of harvested Harvested Wood products products, in which the sense of adjustment is upwards. In
the context of results of the emission reduction program, the sign of the adjustment is opposite to the sign used in the
context of the reference level.
94In
182

In the case of emission factors estimated to report the result of the emission reduction program, the
correction required by VCS is calculated as follows:
If:
𝐶𝐼𝐶 (𝐶𝑆)
⁄𝐶 (𝐶𝑆) > 0.10 𝐶′𝑘 (𝐶𝑆) = (1 + 𝑘(𝐶𝑆) − 0.10) × 𝐶𝑘 (𝐶𝑆)
𝐶𝑘
𝑘
(11)
If:
⁄𝐶 (𝐶𝑆) ≤ 0.10 𝐶′𝑘 (𝐶𝑆) = 𝐶𝑘 (𝐶𝑆)
𝑘
(12)
Where:
Half of the trust interval at 90a% of the level trust of the carbon density of
the k deposit or source for a land use category/stratum (CS), tCO 2 ha-1
𝐶𝑘 (𝐶𝑆)
Carbon density of the k deposit
category/stratum(CS), tCO2 ha-1
𝐶′𝑘 (𝐶𝑆)
Carbon density adjusted according to the VCS JNR of the k deposit or source
for a land use category/stratum (CS), tCO2 ha-1
k
k deposit or emission source.
or
source
for
a
land
use
The application of said correction is shown in tool “FREL TOOL CR v.1”, in the sheet “CARBON”,
between cells AP15: BD6053.
The results are reported inTable 8.3.22. and T8.3.22.Chart 8.3.22. presents the uncertainty values
at 90% of trust in tCO2 ha-1for each deposit and category.Table 8.3.23. presents the relative
uncertainties (%) at 90% of the trust level.
183
Chart 12.2.14. Average uncertainty at 90% trust level of carbon stockss estimated for each category, deposit and gas by using Method 1 of IPCC.
Notes: TF & TFC = Forest Lands and Lands turned into Forest Lands; C = Crops: P = Grasslands; H = Wetlands; AU = Settlements; OT = Other Lands; SI =
Without Information. Bhp = Very wet and pluvial forests; Bh = Rain forests; Bs = Dry forests; Man = Mangroves; Bp-Y = Palm forests – Yolillales; bp =
primary forests; bn = new forests; smf = without sustainable management of forest; cmf = with sustainable management of forest; i = intact; d =
degraded; md = very degraded; int = intervened; 1 … 400 = age in years; an = annual; per = permanent; zll = rainy zone (> 2000 mm year-1); zh = wet
zone (1000-2000 mm year-1); para = Moors; sd = Bare lands;; nat = natural; art = artificial; BARA = Aboveground biomass; BNAA = Aerial NonArboreal Biomass; BARS = Underground Arboreal Biomass; BNAS = Underground Non-Arboreal Biomass; MMA = Aerial Dead Wood; MMS =
Underground Dead Wood; H = Litter; SOC = Soil organic carbon; PM.F1 = Harvested Wood products, Fraction 1 (paper products); PM.F2 = Harvested
Wood products, Fraction 2 (non-structural panels); PM.F3 = Harvested Wood products, Fraction 3 (structural panels, veneer, plywood); PM.F4 =
Harvested Wood products, Fraction 4 (sawmill wood);CO2= carbon dioxide; CH4 = Methane; N2O = Nitrose Oxide.
CO2
Aerial Biomass
BARA
BP
cmf
Bhp
BN
TF
&
TCF
smf
BP
Bh
smf
smf
cmf
BS
smf
i
d
md
int
1
2
399
400
i
d
md
int
1
2
BNAA
Underground
Biomass
BARS
Dead Wood
BNAS
MMA
MMS
Non-CO2 Gas
Litter
C
Land
H
COS
Harvested Wood products:
Use change crops
PM.F
1
PM.F
2
PM.F
3
Biomass burn
PM.F
4
CH4
N2 O
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
8.32
6.64
4.27
6.64
0.22
0.42
8.32
8.32
6.43
-
8.75
8.75
8.75
9.47
0.08
0.16
4.06
4.06
23.25
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.92
0.02
0.05
1.17
1.17
1.04
23.57
23.57
23.57
23.57
23.57
23.57
23.57
23.57
57.93
-
0.55
0.43
0.27
0.43
0.01
0.02
0.61
0.61
0.40
4.34
3.40
2.11
3.40
0.10
0.19
4.82
4.82
3.16
2.56
2.01
1.25
2.01
0.06
0.11
2.84
2.84
1.86
6.60
5.40
3.75
5.14
0.14
0.27
6.82
6.82
4.96
22.10
5.13
-
23.25
1.04
57.93
-
0.31
2.47
1.46
4.12
13.72
3.30
-
23.25
1.04
57.93
-
0.19
1.54
0.91
2.98
22.09
5.13
-
14.66
0.82
57.93
-
0.31
2.47
1.46
3.73
0.88
0.26
-
0.58
0.03
57.93
-
0.01
0.11
0.06
0.16
1.73
0.48
-
1.15
0.06
57.93
-
0.03
0.21
0.12
0.31
37.46
29.36
18.22
29.34
0.75
1.48
37.44
37.45
28.20
Total
tCO2-e
ha-1
184
CO2
Aerial Biomass
BARA
bp
smf
cmf
Bs
bn
bp
Ma
n
smf
smf
cmf
bn
bp
BpY
smf
smf
cmf
bn
smf
BNAA
Underground
Biomass
BARS
Dead Wood
BNAS
MMA
MMS
Non-CO2 Gas
Litter
C
Land
H
COS
Use change crops
PM.F
1
PM.F
2
PM.F
3
Total
Biomass burn
PM.F
4
CH4
N2 O
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
6.43
-
18.72
1.04
57.93
-
0.44
3.45
2.03
5.02
399
400
28.20
28.20
6.43
-
18.72
1.04
57.93
-
0.44
3.45
2.03
5.02
i
d
md
int
1
2
399
400
i
d
md
int
1
2
399
400
i
d
md
int
1
2
399
17.96
14.08
8.74
14.07
0.00
0.00
17.96
17.96
31.21
24.47
15.19
24.45
0.31
0.62
31.21
31.21
40.89
32.05
19.89
32.03
0.41
0.82
40.89
4.22
3.37
2.17
3.37
0.00
0.00
4.22
4.22
7.25
5.79
3.72
5.78
0.10
0.19
7.25
7.25
9.74
7.77
5.00
7.77
0.14
0.26
9.74
-
21.92
21.92
21.92
6.06
0.00
0.00
7.74
7.74
2.05
2.05
2.05
1.97
0.03
0.05
2.51
2.51
7.02
7.02
7.02
5.68
0.08
0.17
8.40
0.61
0.61
0.61
1.45
0.00
0.00
1.85
1.85
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.57
0.01
0.01
0.72
0.72
1.13
1.13
1.13
0.90
0.01
0.02
1.14
168.55
168.55
168.55
168.55
168.55
168.55
168.55
168.55
225.49
225.49
225.49
225.49
225.49
225.49
225.49
-
0.26
0.20
0.13
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.29
0.29
0.38
0.30
0.18
0.30
0.00
0.01
0.37
0.37
2.06
1.61
1.00
1.61
0.00
0.00
2.27
2.27
2.98
2.34
1.45
2.34
0.03
0.06
2.94
2.94
1.21
0.95
0.59
0.95
0.00
0.00
1.34
1.34
1.76
1.38
0.86
1.38
0.02
0.03
1.74
1.74
4.05
3.49
2.74
2.72
0.00
0.00
3.72
3.72
tCO2-e
ha-1
185
CO2
Aerial Biomass
BARA
400
an
zll
C
per
zh
1
2
399
400
1
2
399
400
P
AU
nat
art
H
para
OT
SI
sd
nat
art
BNAA
Underground
Biomass
BARS
Dead Wood
BNAS
MMA
MMS
Non-CO2 Gas
Litter
C
Land
H
COS
Use change crops
PM.F
1
PM.F
2
PM.F
3
PM.F
4
Total
Biomass burn
CH4
N2 O
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
tCO2-e
ha-1
40.89
-
9.74
-
2.45
8.40
-
1.14
-
225.49
9.69
2.04
4.08
40.80
40.80
2.04
4.08
40.80
40.80
-
0.89
1.77
17.72
17.72
0.89
1.77
17.72
17.72
-
0.66
1.26
10.62
10.62
0.66
1.26
10.62
10.62
-
0.31
0.58
4.89
4.89
0.31
0.58
4.89
4.89
-
0.02
0.04
0.43
0.43
0.02
0.04
0.43
0.43
6.29
0.18
0.36
3.61
3.61
0.18
0.36
3.61
3.61
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.16
-
0.53
-
-
-
tCO2-e
ha-1
186
Chart 12.2.15. Average relative uncertainties (%) at 90% trust level of estimated carbon stockss for each category, deposit and gas by using Method 1 of the
IPCC.
Notes: TF & TFC = Forest Lands and Lands turned into Forest Lands; C = Crops: P = Grasslands; H = Wetlands; AU = Settlements; OT = Other Lands; SI =
Without Information. Bhp = Very wet and pluvial forests; Bh = Rain forests; Bs = Dry forests; Man = Mangroves; Bp-Y = Palm forests – Yolillales; bp =
primary forests; bn = new forests; smf = without sustainable management of forest; cmf = with sustainable management of forest; i = intact; d =
degraded; md = very degraded; int = intervened; 1 … 400 = age in years; an = annual; per = permanent; zll = rainy zone (> 2000 mm year-1); zh = wet
zone (1000-2000 mm year-1); para = Moors; sd = Bare lands;; nat = natural; art = artificial; BARA = Aboveground biomass; BNAA = Aerial NonArboreal Biomass; BARS = Underground Arboreal Biomass; BNAS = Underground Non-Arboreal Biomass; MMA = Aerial Dead Wood; MMS =
Underground Dead Wood; H = Litter; SOC = Soil organic carbon; PM.F1 = Harvested Wood products, Fraction 1 (paper products); PM.F2 = Harvested
Wood products, Fraction 2 (non-structural panels); PM.F3 = Harvested Wood products, Fraction 3 (structural panels, veneer, plywood); PM.F4 =
Harvested Wood products, Fraction 4 (sawmill wood);CO2= carbon dioxide; CH4 = Methane; N2O = Nitrose Oxide.
CO2
Aerial biomass
Bhp
C
Land
use change crops
Biomass burn
BNAA
BARS
BNAS
MMA
MMS
H
COS
PM.F1
PM.F
2
PM.F3
PM.F
4
CH4
N2 O
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Exclude
Include
Exclude
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
8%
18%
0%
0%
2%
20%
23%
137%
0%
d
8%
8%
18%
0%
0%
1%
20%
22%
135%
0%
md
8%
8%
18%
0%
0%
1%
20%
19%
134%
0%
int
8%
8%
23%
0%
0%
1%
20%
23%
137%
0%
BP
Cmf
Litter
Total
8%
i
Smf
Dead wood
BARA
%
TF
&
TCF
Underground
biomass
Non-CO2 Gas
187
CO2
Aerial biomass
Bs
bp
Biomass burn
BNAA
BARS
BNAS
MMA
MMS
H
COS
PM.F1
PM.F
2
PM.F3
PM.F
4
CH4
N2 O
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Exclude
Include
Exclude
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
8%
0%
0%
1%
23%
22%
117%
0%
2
8%
8%
8%
0%
0%
1%
22%
20%
117%
0%
399
8%
8%
8%
0%
0%
2%
22%
21%
116%
0%
400
8%
8%
8%
0%
0%
2%
22%
21%
116%
0%
i
8%
8%
48%
0%
0%
2%
21%
22%
138%
0%
d
8%
8%
48%
0%
0%
1%
20%
21%
136%
0%
md
8%
8%
48%
0%
0%
1%
20%
18%
138%
0%
int
8%
8%
48%
0%
0%
2%
21%
23%
138%
0%
1
8%
8%
48%
0%
0%
1%
23%
19%
123%
0%
2
8%
8%
48%
0%
0%
2%
22%
20%
119%
0%
399
8%
8%
48%
0%
0%
2%
22%
21%
118%
0%
400
8%
8%
48%
0%
0%
2%
22%
21%
118%
0%
i
8%
8%
78%
0%
0%
2%
20%
22%
168%
0%
Smf
Smf
use change crops
8%
Bh
BS
C
Land
8%
BP
Cmf
Litter
Total
1
Smf
Smf
Dead wood
BARA
%
BN
Underground
biomass
Non-CO2 Gas
188
CO2
Aerial biomass
Dead wood
Litter
C
Land
BARS
BNAS
MMA
MMS
H
COS
PM.F1
PM.F
2
PM.F3
PM.F
4
CH4
N2 O
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Exclude
Include
Exclude
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
8%
8%
78%
0%
0%
1%
20%
20%
172%
0%
md
8%
8%
78%
0%
0%
2%
20%
18%
188%
0%
int
8%
8%
29%
0%
1%
1%
20%
22%
145%
0%
0%
2
0%
0%
0%
399
8%
8%
29%
0%
1%
2%
22%
20%
125%
0%
400
8%
8%
29%
0%
1%
2%
22%
20%
125%
0%
i
12%
12%
29%
0%
0%
2%
25%
0%
d
12%
12%
29%
0%
0%
2%
25%
0%
md
11%
11%
29%
0%
0%
2%
24%
0%
int
12%
12%
37%
0%
0%
2%
25%
0%
1
12%
11%
43%
0%
0%
0%
25%
0%
2
12%
12%
36%
0%
0%
2%
25%
0%
bp
Ma
n
Cmf
bn
%
d
Smf
Smf
Total
Biomass burn
BNAA
1
bn
use change crops
BARA
%
Cmf
Underground
biomass
Non-CO2 Gas
Smf
0%
0%
189
CO2
Aerial biomass
Cmf
bn
per
C
Land
use change crops
Biomass burn
BNAA
BARS
BNAS
MMA
MMS
H
COS
PM.F1
PM.F
2
PM.F3
PM.F
4
CH4
N2 O
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Exclude
Include
Exclude
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
12%
12%
37%
0%
0%
2%
24%
0%
400
12%
12%
37%
0%
0%
2%
24%
0%
i
22%
22%
118%
0%
0%
d
21%
21%
118%
0%
0%
md
21%
21%
118%
0%
0%
int
22%
22%
122%
0%
0%
1
22%
22%
133%
0%
0%
2
22%
21%
142%
0%
0%
399
22%
22%
141%
0%
0%
400
22%
22%
141%
0%
0%
Smf
12%
an
C
Litter
Total
399
bp
BpY
Dead wood
BARA
%
Smf
Underground
biomass
Non-CO2 Gas
12%
1
71%
68%
70%
69%
33%
47%
2
71%
68%
70%
68%
33%
47%
zll
190
CO2
Aerial biomass
Underground
biomass
Dead wood
Non-CO2 Gas
Litter
C
Land
Biomass burn
BARA
BNAA
BARS
BNAS
MMA
MMS
H
COS
PM.F1
PM.F
2
PM.F3
PM.F
4
CH4
N2 O
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Exclude
Include
Exclude
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
399
71%
68%
71%
68%
35%
48%
400
71%
68%
71%
68%
35%
48%
1
71%
68%
70%
69%
33%
47%
2
71%
68%
70%
68%
33%
47%
399
71%
68%
71%
68%
35%
48%
400
71%
68%
71%
68%
35%
48%
zh
use change crops
Total
%
76%
P
AU
nat
H
art
2%
para
OT
2%
nat
sd
art
191
CO2
Aerial biomass
Underground
biomass
Dead wood
Non-CO2 Gas
Litter
C
Land
use change crops
Biomass burn
BARA
BNAA
BARS
BNAS
MMA
MMS
H
COS
PM.F1
PM.F
2
PM.F3
PM.F
4
CH4
N2 O
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Exclude
Include
Exclude
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
Total
%
SI
192
Uncertainty of the reference level
The total uncertainty of the reference level was estimated with the Montecarlo method by considering the
combined uncertainty of the activity data and of the emission factors. For this purpose, two macros of the “FREL
TOOL CR v.1” tool were incorporated. The first one calculates the uncertainty level in the “FREL&FRL” sheet (see
line 469) and the second one calculates the uncertainties of the emission reduction program results in the
“RESULTS” sheet (see line 132).
Chart 12.2.16. shows the parameters defined in one of the Montecarlo simulations performed, with 10,000
iterations. Table 12.2.19. shows the results of the Montecarlo simulations for each REDD+ activity by using the
setting of Table 12.2.16. The results are shown at 90% trust.
Chart 12.2.20. shows the final relative uncertainties of the reference level considering all the activities included.
Chart 12.2.16. Configuration of the Montecarlo simulation performed.
Date
9/17/2015 15:35
Iterations
10,000
Trust level
0.9
Include activity data uncertainty
Yes
Include emission factor data uncertainty
Yes
In order to determine the relative contribution of the activity data to the total uncertainty of the reference level,
10,000 Montecarlo simulations were performed with the configuration shown inTable 12.2.17 (i.e. ignoring the
uncertainty of the emission factors).Table 12.2.21 shows the results of the Montecarlo simulations using these
settings. Likewise, Montecarlo simulations were performed with the configuration shown inTable 12.2.18 (i.e.
ignoring the uncertainty of the activity data).Table 12.2.22 shows the results of the Montecarlo simulations using
these settings.
Chart 12.2.17. Configuration of the Montecarlo simulation performed to determine the relative contribution of
the activity data to the total uncertainty of the reference level.
Date
10/20/2015 4:55:37 PM
Iterations
10,000
Trust level
0.9
Yes
No
Chart 12.2.18. Configuration of the Montecarlo simulation performed to determine the relative contribution of
the activity data to the total uncertainty of the reference level.
Date
10/31/2015 7:05:01 AM
Iterations
10,000
Trust level
0.9
No
Yes
193
Chart 12.2.19. Uncertainty of the reference level. Mean and percentiles for each REDD+ activity according to the 10,000 Montecarlo simulations performed with the
settings shown inTable 12.2.16.
Activity
Total
anthropoge
nic
deforestatio
n
DF.an
Anthropogen
ic
deforestation
of primary
forests
Anthropogen
ic
deforestation
of new
forests
AE.bs
Carbon
stocks
increase in
new forests
Statistica
l
Mean
Percentile
95%
Percentile
5%
Mean
Percentile
95%
Percentile
5%
Mean
Percentile
95%
Percentile
5%
Mean
Percentile
95%
Percentile
5%
Mean
CO
Forests
conservation
FREL
Total
reference
level (only
flows)
Percentile
95%
Percentile
5%
Mean
Percentile
95%
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
7,212,19
7
8,953,03
5
5,541,49
4
5,289,88
2
6,548,58
0
4,060,4
28
1,922,31
5
2,421,85
0
1,450,39
8
(4,419,9
41)
(3,983,3
46)
(4,885,6
01)
1,258,69
6,796
1,342,54
0,737
1,175,66
6,956
2,792,25
6
4,399,99
6
7,212,19
7
8,953,03
5
5,541,49
4
5,289,88
2
6,548,58
0
4,060,42
8
1,922,31
5
2,421,85
0
1,450,39
8
(4,419,9
41)
(3,983,3
46)
(4,885,6
01)
1,251,54
2,408
1,334,83
7,280
1,169,02
7,346
2,792,25
6
4,399,99
6
7,212,19
7
8,953,03
5
5,541,49
4
5,289,88
2
6,548,58
0
4,060,4
28
1,922,31
5
2,421,85
0
1,450,39
8
(4,419,9
41)
(3,983,3
46)
(4,885,6
01)
1,244,44
2,359
1,327,32
7,134
1,162,32
9,815
2,792,25
6
4,399,99
6
7,212,19
7
8,953,03
5
5,541,49
4
5,289,88
2
6,548,58
0
4,060,42
8
1,922,31
5
2,421,85
0
1,450,39
8
(4,419,9
41)
(3,983,3
46)
(4,885,6
01)
1,237,39
6,141
1,319,89
9,695
1,155,68
9,658
2,792,25
6
4,399,99
6
7,212,19
7
8,953,03
5
5,541,49
4
5,289,88
2
6,548,58
0
4,060,42
8
1,922,31
5
2,421,85
0
1,450,39
8
(4,419,9
41)
(3,983,3
46)
(4,885,6
01)
1,230,40
3,248
1,312,39
9,076
1,149,11
6,031
2,792,25
6
4,399,99
6
7,212,19
7
8,953,03
5
5,541,49
4
5,289,88
2
6,548,58
0
4,060,4
28
1,922,31
5
2,421,85
0
1,450,39
8
(4,419,9
41)
(3,983,3
46)
(4,885,6
01)
1,223,46
3,183
1,305,05
5,812
1,142,57
7,551
2,792,25
6
4,399,99
6
7,212,19
7
8,953,03
5
5,541,49
4
5,289,88
2
6,548,58
0
4,060,42
8
1,922,31
5
2,421,85
0
1,450,39
8
(4,419,9
41)
(3,983,3
46)
(4,885,6
01)
1,216,57
5,450
1,297,82
5,884
1,136,10
0,291
2,792,25
6
4,399,99
6
7,212,19
7
8,953,03
5
5,541,49
4
5,289,88
2
6,548,58
0
4,060,42
8
1,922,31
5
2,421,85
0
1,450,39
8
(4,419,9
41)
(3,983,3
46)
(4,885,6
01)
1,209,73
9,563
1,290,56
8,060
1,129,68
3,954
2,792,25
6
4,399,99
6
7,212,19
7
8,953,03
5
5,541,49
4
5,289,88
2
6,548,58
0
4,060,4
28
1,922,31
5
2,421,85
0
1,450,39
8
(4,419,9
41)
(3,983,3
46)
(4,885,6
01)
1,202,95
5,037
1,283,39
3,761
1,123,30
9,074
2,792,25
6
4,399,99
6
7,212,19
7
8,953,03
5
5,541,49
4
5,289,88
2
6,548,58
0
4,060,42
8
1,922,31
5
2,421,85
0
1,450,39
8
(4,419,9
41)
(3,983,3
46)
(4,885,6
01)
1,196,22
1,394
1,276,35
8,170
1,116,98
2,217
2,792,25
6
4,399,99
6
7,212,19
7
8,953,03
5
5,541,49
4
5,289,88
2
6,548,58
0
4,060,42
8
1,922,31
5
2,421,85
0
1,450,39
8
(4,419,9
41)
(3,983,3
46)
(4,885,6
01)
1,189,53
8,161
1,269,26
2,058
1,110,69
1,470
2,792,25
6
4,399,99
6
7,212,19
7
8,953,03
5
5,541,49
4
5,289,88
2
6,548,58
0
4,060,4
28
1,922,31
5
2,421,85
0
1,450,39
8
(4,419,9
41)
(3,983,3
46)
(4,885,6
01)
1,182,90
4,868
1,262,19
4,945
1,104,47
0,790
2,792,25
6
4,399,99
6
7,212,19
7
8,953,03
5
5,541,49
4
5,289,88
2
6,548,58
0
4,060,42
8
1,922,31
5
2,421,85
0
1,450,39
8
(4,419,9
41)
(3,983,3
46)
(4,885,6
01)
1,176,32
1,052
1,255,18
0,549
1,098,28
5,340
2,792,25
6
4,399,99
6
7,212,19
7
8,953,03
5
5,541,49
4
5,289,88
2
6,548,58
0
4,060,42
8
1,922,31
5
2,421,85
0
1,450,39
8
(4,419,9
41)
(3,983,3
46)
(4,885,6
01)
1,169,78
6,254
1,248,14
2,803
1,092,14
5,175
2,792,25
6
4,399,99
6
194
Activity
Statistica
l
Percentile
5%
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
1,198,08
2
1,198,08
2
1,198,08
2
1,198,08
2
1,198,08
2
1,198,08
2
1,198,08
2
1,198,08
2
1,198,08
2
1,198,08
2
1,198,08
2
1,198,08
2
1,198,08
2
1,198,08
2
195
Chart 12.2.20. Relative uncertainty at 90% trust of the reference level considering the combined uncertainty of the activity data and of the emission factors,
per the configuration of the Montecarlo simulations shown inTable 12.2.16.
Statistical
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Higher level to 90% significance
57.58%
57.58%
57.58%
57.58%
57.58%
57.58%
57.58%
57.58%
57.58%
57.58%
57.58%
57.58%
57.58%
57.58%
Lower level to 90% significance
57.09
%
57.09
%
57.09
%
57.09
%
57.09
%
57.09
%
57.09
%
57.09
%
57.09
%
57.09
%
57.09
%
57.09
%
57.09
%
57.09
%
Chart 12.2.21. Relative uncertainties at 90% of the trust level of the reference level only considering the activity data per the configuration of the Montecarlo
simulations shown inTable 12.2.17.
Statistical
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
57.45%
57.45%
57.45%
57.45%
57.45%
57.45%
57.45%
57.45%
57.45%
57.45%
57.45%
57.45%
57.45%
57.45%
55.56
%
55.56
%
55.56
%
55.56
%
55.56
%
55.56
%
55.56
%
55.56
%
55.56
%
55.56
%
55.56
%
55.56
%
55.56
%
55.56
%
Chart 12.2.22. Relative uncertainties at 90% of the trust level of the reference level only considering the emission factors, per the configuration of the
Montecarlo simulations shown in Table 12.2.18.
Statistical
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
14.12%
14.12%
14.12%
14.12%
14.12%
14.12%
14.12%
14.12%
14.12%
14.12%
14.12%
14.12%
14.12%
14.12%
14.16
%
14.16
%
14.16
%
14.16
%
14.16
%
14.16
%
14.16
%
14.16
%
14.16
%
14.16
%
14.16
%
14.16
%
14.16
%
14.16
%
As shown inTables 12.2.20., 12.2.21. y 12.2.22., the most important proportion of the estimated total uncertainty for the reference level at a trust level of
90% (57.09% - 57.58%) is attributable to the uncertainty of the activity data, since by ignoring the uncertainties of the emission factors, the total uncertainty
of the reference level is at a trust level of 90%, within the rank of 57.45% - 57.56%, while by ignoring the uncertainties of the activity data, the total uncertainty
of the reference level is at a trust level of 90%, within the rank of 14.12% - 14.16%. From this analysis, it is concluded that improving the accuracy of the land
use change maps is the most appropriate strategy to increase the accuracy on determining estimated emissions and absorptions.
196
197
13. Calculation of Emission Reductions
13.1. Ex-ante estimation of the Emission Reductions
As stated in Section 2.2, the emission reduction program in Costa Rica reports an emission reduction for
period 2010-2013 of -8,889,739 t CO2-e (-2,222,435 t CO2-e year-1).
Due to the total uncertainty of this emission reduction (between 17.46% and 26.10%, depending of the
year), estimated by performing 10,000 iterations with the Montecarlo procedure (see “RESULTS” sheet in
the “FREL TOOL CR v.1” sheet), it is necessary to make a discount of the 4% per Criteria 22 of the
Methodological Framework of the FCPF Carbon Fund. Said discount is equivalent to 355,590 t CO2-e
(88,897 t CO2-e year-1). As shown inTable 13.1.1, the result obtained is then 8,534,150 t CO2-e (2,133,537 t
CO2-e year-1.
Chart 13.1.1. Calculation of results obtained for period 2010-2013 (seeTable 2.2.2 in Section 2.2)
Year
2013
Total
Annual
average
tCCO2-e
año-1
tCCO2-e
año-1
tCCO2-e
año-1
tCCO2-e
año-1
tCCO2-e
tCCO2-e
año-1
2,795,873
11,183,49
2
2,795,873
425,744
469,280
838,504
560,225
2,293,753
573,438
(2,370,129)
(2,326,594)
(1,957,369)
(2,235,648)
(8,889,73
9)
(2,222,435)
19.04%
17.46%
26.10%
22.03%
21.16%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
(94,805.17)
(93,063.74)
(78,294.75)
(89,425.92)
(355,590)
(88,897)
(2,387,159)
(2,275,324)
(2,233,530)
(1,879,074)
(8,534,15
0)
(2,133,537)
100%
100%
100%
100%
(2,275,324)
(2,233,530)
(1,879,074)
(2,146,222)
(8,534,15
0)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
USD tCO2e-1
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
USD
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Uncertainty(1)
%
tCO2-e
Results 2010-2013
%
tCO2-e
Tons payable
Payment
expected:
2012
2,795,873
Emission reductions
2010-2013
Price per ton
2011
2,795,873
Emissions 2010-2013
Reserve for
compensation of
future reversals
2010
2,795,873
Reference level 1996-2009
Discount for
uncertainty(2)
Period 2010-2013
100%
(2,133,537)
Notes: (1) Total uncertainties calculated with 10,000 Montecarlo simulations, “FREL TOOL CR v.1”, sheet
“RESULTS”.

(2) Per criteria 22 of the Methodological framework of the FCPF Carbon Fund.
198
As shown in the followingTable, the emission reductions generated between 01.01.2010 and 12.31.2013
represent 27.14% of the emission reductions forecasted until 12.31.2015. This amount exceeds what could
be considered a cautious reserve (20%) to compensate a mid-level risk of future reversals. Therefore, as
explained in Section 11.3, Costa Rica considers that through early actions in its emission reduction program
it has already generated an amount of emission reductions that is more than enough as to compensate the
risk of future reversals.
199
ERPA
term
year t
Reference
level
(tCO2-e/yr)
2010
2,795,873
Estimation of expected forestrelated emissions and absorptions
under the ER Program
(tCO2-e/yr)
Public
lands
(32%)
Other
lands
(68%)
136,238
Estimation of expected set-aside to
reflect the level of uncertainty
associated with the estimation of ERs
during the Term of the ERPA (tCO2e/yr)
All lands
(100%)
Public
lands
(32%)
Other
lands
(68%)
289,506
425,744
30,338
Estimated emission reductions
(tCO2-e/yr)
All lands
(100%)l
Public
lands
(32%)
Other
lands
(68%)
All lands
(100%)
64,468
94,805
728,104
1,547,220
2,275,324
Estimated results of the program under the FCPF
Carbon Fund
(tCO2-e/yr)
Emission
reductions
for resultbased
payments
Emission
reduction
s to be
negotiate
d-ted
Reserve
to
compensa
te
possible
future
reversals
Total
estimated
results on
public
lands
728,104
728,104
2011
2,795,873
150,169
319,110
469,280
29,780
63,283
93,064
714,730
1,518,800
2,233,530
714,730
714,730
2012
2,795,873
268,321
570,183
838,504
25,054
53,240
78,295
601,304
1,277,770
1,879,074
601,304
601,304
2013
2,795,873
179,272
380,953
560,225
28,616
60,810
89,426
686,791
1,459,431
2,146,222
686,791
686,791
2014
2,795,873
244,667
519,917
764,584
39,001
82,877
121,877
611,012
1,298,400
1,909,411
611,012
611,012
2015
2,795,873
244,667
519,917
764,584
39,001
82,877
121,877
611,012
1,298,400
1,909,411
611,012
611,012
2016
2,795,873
244,667
519,917
764,584
39,001
82,877
121,877
611,012
1,298,400
1,909,411
611,012
611,012
2017
2,795,873
244,667
519,917
764,584
39,001
82,877
121,877
611,012
1,298,400
1,909,411
611,012
611,012
2018
2,795,873
244,667
519,917
764,584
39,001
82,877
121,877
611,012
1,298,400
1,909,411
611,012
611,012
2019
2,795,873
244,667
519,917
764,584
39,001
82,877
121,877
611,012
1,298,400
1,909,411
611,012
611,012
2020
2,795,873
244,667
519,917
764,584
39,001
82,877
121,877
611,012
1,298,400
1,909,411
611,012
611,012
2021
2,795,873
244,667
519,917
764,584
39,001
82,877
121,877
611,012
1,298,400
1,909,411
611,012
611,012
2022
2,795,873
244,667
519,917
764,584
39,001
82,877
121,877
611,012
1,298,400
1,909,411
611,012
611,012
2023
2,795,873
244,667
519,917
764,584
39,001
82,877
121,877
611,012
1,298,400
1,909,411
611,012
611,012
2023
2,795,873
244,667
519,917
764,584
39,001
82,877
121,877
611,012
1,298,400
1,909,411
611,012
611,012
2025
2,795,873
244,667
519,917
764,584
39,001
82,877
121,877
611,012
1,298,400
1,909,411
611,012
611,012
44,733,970
3,670,005
7,798,761
11,468,766
581,798
1,236,320
1,818,117
10,063,068
21,384,019
31,447,086
5,499,105
2,519,826
2,044,137
100%
32%
68%
100%
32%
68%
100%
32%
68%
100%
55%
25%
20%
Total
(tCO2e)
Total
(%)
10,063,068
100%
200
During the 2010-2013 period, the emissions for deforestation in primary forests decreased in 35.61% with
regards to the reference level for this type of forest, but increased in 21.51% in the case of new forests,
which resulted in a reduction of 20.38% of the deforestation emissions for all types of forests. On the other
hand, the absorptions for new forests increased in 17% in comparison with the reference level. Changes in
emissions and absorptions are very different, depending on the type of forest and REDD+ activity, which
makes it difficult to forecast future results. .
Considering that the 2010-2013 only includes 4 years and that the national circumstances could evolve and
result in contexts very different from current tones, it is hard to know whether the emission reductions and
the absorption increases obtained int he first years of the program are representative for the results to be
obtained in the future. For this reason, and in order to achieve a conservative forecast of the emission
reductions forecasted, for years following 2013, emissions higher than 25% of those reported for the 20102013 period are forecasted, although the country’s ambition is to reduce emissions for deforestation to zero
in primary forests.
Assuming that the same protocols will always be applied to estimate the activity data and that the carbon
stocks data currently available will be kept to calculate emission factors, it is reasonable to suppose that the
uncertainty level will remain at a similar level at that calculated for the 2010-2013 period. In order to obtain
a conservative forecast, an average discount for uncertainty forecasted in 6% is applied, assuming that in
some years it will correspond to do a 4% discount (such as the case of years 2010-2013) and in some others
a discount of 8%.
Finally, considering that Costa Rica proposes using its early emission reductions (2010 – 2012) as reserves to
compensate eventual future reversals, the results expected do not include a deduction forecast for the
concept of non-permanence reserves or “buffers”.
201
14. Safeguards
14.1. Description of how the ER Program meets the World Bank social and environmental
safeguards and promotes and supports the safeguards included in UNFCCC guidance
related to REDD+
Compliance of World Bank’s operational policies
For the design and execution of the Emission Reduction Program, there is full compliance of the World
Bank’s Operational Policies applicable in country, as well as of the Cancun Safeguards of the CMNUCC,
Decision 1/CP.16 and its appendix 1. The World Bank’s Operational Policies activated in the Integrated
Safeguard Data Sheet (ISDS) for the case of Costa Rica are the following:

Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01)

Forests (OP 4.36)

Natural Habitats (OP 4.04)

Involuntary relocation (OP 4.12)

Indigenous peoples (OP 4.10).

Pest Control (OP 4.09)
On the other hand the following operational policies were not activated:

Physical cultural resources (OP 4.11): Because the team has found no evidence that the activities of
REDD+ National Strategy will be implemented in forestry lands declared physical cultural
resources by the Government of Costa Rica.

Hydroelectric Dams’ Safety (OP 4.37): Because the REDD+ Strategy will not fund the construction
or rehabilitation of hydroelectric dams nor depends on the performance of existing ones.

International Navigational Waters (OP 7.50): REDD+ Strategy will not prerform activities to affect
the amount or quality of international navigational waters.

Projects in Areas in Dispute (7.60): The REDD+ National Strategy will not fund activities in areas in
dispute as defined in the World Bank’s policy.
The way in which the environmental and social safeguards of the World Bank are complied with is set forth
in the Environmental and Social Management Framework (MGAS), an instrument where an analysis is
performed and the procedures to follow are set in the case of applicable operational policies. For the
implementation and approach to these operational policies, the natural legal framework is used in the first
instance, and as a complement, the guidelines, rules and principles set in the operational policies
mentioned were considered. Below, there is a brief explanation of each operational policy and a summary
202
or how these policies are complied with within the Framework of the Emission Reduction Program. For
more details, the MGAS can be consulted.
OP 4.01 Environmental Assessment
This operational policy is approached through the application of national legislation for being too
comprehensive: Environment Organic Law N° 7554 of 1995; Executive Decree N° 31849-MINAE-SALUDMOPT-MAG-MEIC; General Regulations on the Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures (EIA).
OP 4.01, sets four categories; for the case of Costa Rica, Category B is applicable, whose possible
environmental repercussions on human populations or zones with ecologic importance are less adverse
than those of category A.
This is because the nature of the activities defined in the Emission Reduction Program and in the REDD+
National Strategy could have adverse repercussions in the population. Due to the foregoing, and as part of
the actions to implement this safeguard, Costa Rica performed a Social and Environmental Strategic
Assessment (SESA) for which prpose a series of workshops took place with the Relevant Interested Parties
(RIPs) to obtain feedback in the preparation of the REDD+ National Strategy and as part of the SESA
process and the Social and Environmental Management Framework (MGAS in Spanish). The SESA process
has been performed consistently with the World Bank’s (safeguards) social and environmental operational
policies.
The MGAS was developed during 2014-2015; it is the instrument under which the social and environmental
impacts identified in the SESA were examined and their management was proposed through
implementation procedures of safeguard and monitoring plans to mitigate them, as well as the different
frameworks developed such as the Involuntary Relocation and Process Framework and the Plannig
Framework for Indigenous Peoples. In addition to that, a series of studies on the historic and current
environmental situation have been performed such as the causes of deforestation, which have contributed
to improve the proposals for the Emission Reduction Program and the REDD+ National Strategy.
OP 4.04: Natural Habitats
The operational Natural Habitats Policy is complied through the application of the national legislation that
is comprehensive: Environment Organic Law N. 7554 de 1995; Forestry Law N. 7575, de 1996; Biodiversity
Law N° 7788 de 1998.
It is expected that the REDD+ National Strategy positively influence on the maintenance and increase of
natural habitats in Costa Rica, defining actions for the maintenance and broadening of the Payment for
Environmental Services program (PSA in Spanish), the efforts to improve the protected areas system and
the State natural heritage, along with the reinforcement of national strategies on fire management and
illegal clearing control, as well as the incorporation of the natural regeneration and of Tree plantations
within the framework of the policies and actions to be promoted, supposes an improvement of the natural
capital of the country. This means a positive affectation on carbon stockss and other environmental cobenefits. In the specific case of the Emission Reduction Program for Costa Rica, through the application of
this operational policy and the application of the national legislation, the aim is to assure the maximization
of protection activities and the broadening of natural habitats as well as the services they provide to the
population. This criterion is compatible with the provisions in Article 11 of the Biodiversity Law.
203
In this sense, the SESA’s participatory and analytical process did not highlight any potential risk associated
to the policies and actions of the REDD+ National Strategy in Protected Wildlife Areas (ASP in Spanish)
forest habitats, besides other sensitive forest habitats under private or communal control. During the
implementation of the Emission Reduction Program the relevant stakeholders will be consulted (PIRs), in
order to identify possible negative and positive implications of the policies and actions on natural habitats,
including monitoring activities to assure that critical natural habitats are not affected. Indicators have been
included in the follow-up and assessment process proposed in MGAS to assess possible impacts prior to the
execution of any action performed in sensitive sites. The way this operational policy is complied with is set
forth in the MGAS.
OP 4.09: Pest control
This safeguard is implemented by applying the national legislation which is very comprehensive: Law for
the Development, Promotion and Enhancement of Agricultural Activities N° 8591 of 2007; Phytosanitary
Protection Law N°7664 of 1997; Regulations on the Registration, use and control of agricultural plaguicides
and adjuvants, Decree No. 24337-MAG-SALUD de 1995.
The World Bank promotes the biological management of plagues in order to reduce dependency on
synthetic pesticides. In the projects approved by the Bank, the management of pests must be attended
within the context of the environmental assessment. The Bank assesses the capacity of the regulatory and
institutional frameworks of the beneficiaries in order to define their capacity to manage pests in an
environmentally “friendly” way and promotes the integrated pest management (IPM).
This operational policy is activiated because it is considered that the establishment of tree plantations, agriforestry systems and other silvi-cultural activities are considered forecasted as part of Emission Reduction
Program could suppose in specific cases, the need of dealing with pests, an element that must be
approached in a specific manner during the implementation and cannot be predetermined. Currently, there
are no plans to promote actions to explicitly cause an increase on the use of pesticides or other chemicals.
However, it is possible that some sustainable management of forest practices used in plantations may be
used in silvi-cultural practices with pesticides. The impacts and risks associated to the possible use of any
chemical product in forestry management, if necessary, will be analyzed and mitigated through actions
contained in the forestry management plans.
OP 4.10: Indigenous peoples
OP 4.10, is complied with the development of the organization and consultation process, in compliance
with OIL Convention 169 described in section 5.1.
All projects proposed for funding by the World Bank affecting Indigenous peoples must execute a prior
consultation procedure, free and informed, aiming to obtain broad support from the indigenous community
potentially affected.
With the SESA results, the Social and Environmental Management Framework (MGAS in Spanish) ws
prepared and filed before the World Bank; it serves as a guiding instrument for the implementation of the
REDD+ National Strategy and for future investments in activities for land demonstration. The MGAS
includes the Planning Framework for Indigenous Peoples (MPPI in Spanish) and its prupose is to address the
problems that might arise from specific investments during the implementation of the Emission Reduction
Program. Under this policy, the indigenous peoples affected by the REDD+ National Strategy must be
204
consulted in an appropriate cultural manner and must provide wide community support. Costa Rica is also
committed to comply with its duties under ILO Convention 169 regarding tribal and indigenous peoples.
OP 4.12: Involuntary Relocation Instruments
This policy covers the direct economic and social effects resulting from the investment projects that may
derive in involuntary land deprivation and the involuntary restriction of access to zones qualified by the Law
as parks or protected zones, with the subsequent adverse effects for the subsistence of the people
displaced.
To comply with the involuntary relocation policy, a Framework of the Process (PF) will be prepared as part
of the MGAS in order to manage the potential access restriction of local communities to rural resources.
Additionally, an Involuntary Relocation Framework (MRI in Spanish) was prepared face the potential
relocation of private land owners currently living in protected areas and the possible relocation and
compensation of private land owners in indigenous territories.
Legal studies have also been performed on the issue of land tenure as well as regarding the cadastre, which
have represented a significant contribution to identify the problems and possible necessary actions to
mitigate their adverse effects.
OP 4.36: Forests
The purpose of OP 4. 36 is assisting the beneficiaries in using the potential of forests in the fight to reduce
poverty in a sustainable manner, to integrate them into the sustainable economic development and to
protect their values and environmental services, at the local and global levels. This policy applies to projects
that might affect eh quality or life of forests; that affect populations depending on forest resources; and
whose goal is to generate change in the management, protection or use of natural forests or plantations,
public, private or communal. In this sense, the Bank does not fund projects implying forest degradation,
disappearance or exploitation. In order to determine the possible negative environmental impacts on forest
ecosystems, the Bank sets the assessment and mitigation guidelines through OP 4.01.
The Emission Reduction Program and the REDD+ National Strategy will be based on FONAFIFO’s
experience with the PSA program and the principles, criteria and national indicators applicable to
sustainable sustainable management of forest. During the preparation stage, these and other forest and
rural development initiatives have been assessed by incorporating lessons learned in the design of the
REDD+ National Strategy and the potential social and environmental risks associated to REDD+ in the
MGAS. For this purpose, the contributions of participants of the different sectors in the participatory
workshops were feedback of the highest importance. In the case of the Emission Reduction Program, being
an initiative actively involving forests, these OP is of particular significance. Due to the foregoing,
operational policy 4.36 serves as the parameter to assess all the forest management activities implying
poverty reduction.
Approach to the safeguards of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Costa Rica has broad institutional and legislative experience in the development and implementation of
environmental and social safeguard mechanisms. Many of the principles set in the environmental and
forest legislation of the country were issued almost 20 years ago to operationalize compliance of the
constitutional obligation of granting the inhabitants of the country the enjoyment of a healthy and
205
ecologically balanced environment, compatible with the safeguards of REDD+ under the Convention 95. The
policies and actions incorporated into the Emission Reduction program will support the respect of the
aforementioned safeguards and the full functioning of a transparent and robust information system
according to COP’s requirements. Specifically, policy 6 contains a series of actions towards reinforcing the
foregoing. This policy is related to participation, transparency and accountability (Section 4.3.).
As mentioned above, the Emission Reduction Program is part of a political prioritizing initiative led by the
Ministry of the Environment and Energy, seeking to prioritize efforts in the implementation of some
strategies set in the Forestry National Development Plan in force, therefore guaranteeing the compatibility
of both instruments. Additionally, the PRE sets clear work guidelines to improve the synergies between the
objects of the main global environmental conventions of which the country is a party. National legislation
sets the explicit prohibition of forest land change, guaranteeing an effective action against reversals.
Finally, the PRE is envisioned as an additional effort that the country will start to strengthen its actions
towards improving life quality of its population and the reduction of poverty, emphasizing in rural areas.
This way, a proposal consistent with the general framework of safeguards application is presented.
From the perspective of forest governance and participation mechanisms of relevant stakeholders, it is
important to recognize that the legal framework in force in the country is extremely rich in establishing
mechanisms to facilitate dialogue between government entities and civil society. For instance, the Forest
Law establishes the creation of the Forestry National Office as the entity to facilitate dialogue around forest
policies in the country. This office is comprised by representatives of small and medium producers, private
sector, industrial sector and non-government organizations. Likewise, the relevant stakeholders will be
represented before the Board of Directors of the National Forest Financing Fund, through democratic
nomination mechanisms internally in each sector. Besides, in a broader scenario, representatives of the civil
society participate in the Conservation Areas Regional Councils and in the Conservation Areas National
Council, which is one of the entities for decision making on the national policies on natural resource
conservation, including the topics related to forest ecosystems.
The institutional framework of participation mentioned above has been specifically strengthened to
promote a higher participation of the PIRs in all of REDD+ efforts, including the Emission Reduction
Program, through the creation of an Executive Committee by means of a decree that broadens the
participation of small and medium sized peasants and strengthens the participation of indigenous peoples.
The Committee has been the main referent for the dialogues between the Government and the relevant
stakeholders and is a mechanism intended to remain valid during the implementation of the PRE in a
constant manner.
The scope of the Emission Reduction Program, in fact, is oriented towards safeguarding the Convention,
since it contains specific actions that: a) complement the implementation of the Forestry National
Development Plan and the main global environmental conventions, b) starts by recognizing forest
governance formal and transparent structures set forth in the Forestry Law in force, c) starts by recognizing
the rights and cultural scopes of indigenous peoples and assists the needs of local communities, d)
strengthens participation mechanisms of the relevant stakeholders, particularly indigenous peoples, e)
reinforces actions to guarantee the conservation of forests and avoid their conversion into other uses
95Anex
I of decision 1/CP.16.
206
consistently with the legislation in force and promotes environmental and social goals beyond emission
reductions, and f) contains specific actions to prevent reversals and leaks. The table below describes the
application of the Cancun Safeguards in the MGAS.
REDD+ (CMNUCC)SAFEGUARDS
Safeguard a: the complementarity or
compatibility of the measurements with the goals
of national forestry programs and of the
international conventions and agreements on the
subject matter.
Safeguard b: The transparency and efficacy of
national forestry governance structures,
considering national legislation and sovereignty.
Safeguard c: Respect of knowledge and of the
rights of indigenous peoples and of the members
of their local communities, taking into account
pertinent international obligations and
circumstances, and the national and international
legislation.
Safeguard d: The full and effective participation
of the interested parties, particularly indigenous
peoples and local communities.
Application in the MGAS
The analysis of the national and international
Legal Framework applied this safeguard, setting
its compatibility with national forestry programs
and the international conventions on the subject
matter.
This safeguard is considered one of the follow-up
indicators.
The application of the national and international
regulations is set for the indigenous topic.
Additionally, the procedures for applying the
Indigenous peoples OP and the BM and safeguard
plans are set.
The application of the national and international
regulations is set for the indigenous topic.
Additionally, the procedures for applying the
Indigenous peoples OP and the BM and safeguard
plans are set.
Figure 14.1.1. Application of mitigation measures of the Environmental and Social Management Framework
and its relationship with the safeguards defined for REDD+ under the CMNUCC.
14.2. Description of arrangements to provide information on safeguards during ER
Program implementation
Safeguard plans and their implementation during the Program
The safeguard plans cover social and environmental issues and include the mitigation measures of adverse
environmental and social impacts identified during the national preparation process in SESA and MGAS,
derived from the implementation of the REDD+ National Strategy and the Emission Reduction Program
taking into consideration the institutional and regulatory frameworks in force. These safeguard plans have
been prepared simultaneous to the preparation of the Emission Reduction Program and are reflected in the
MGAS supporting the REDD+ National Strategy incorporating the environmental and social safeguards
World Bank´s ISDS international activities.
In the MGAS, the topics identified as risky to produce environmental or social impacts pertinent to the
specific context of the Emission Reduction Program are described below with their corresponding
mitigation measurements, and are the product of a systematization of the consultation processes that
started with the SESA workshop in 2011 and the subsequent participation processes. For each risk axis the
specific actions and tasks proposed as part of the Emission Reduction Program are mentioned. .
207
Risk axis 1. Governance, operational management, administrative and silvicultural capacities,
and coherence of policies in the public and private sector.
Actions that can generate environmental and/or social impact: 1.2 Strengthen the deforestation control,
degradation, clearing control, processing and illegal commercialization of forest products program both
operationally and financially. 1.3 Strengthen the National Forest Monitoring System. 1.5 Contribute to the
consolidation of the Protected Areas National System. 1.7 Develop and execute implementation plans for
actions addressing direct and subjacent causes for deforestation and degradation. 2.1 Prepare the Forestry
Development Plan in Indigenous Lands. 2.2 Develop and strengthen mechanisms for the solution of
controversies in the implementation of REDD+. 3.1Assist in the implementation of the PNDF policies
related to the improvement of management capacities in support to the implementation of REDD+. 3.2
Strengthen promotion and recognition policies on sustainable agricultural and agro-forestry practices.
Mitigation measurements proposed in the MGAS:
 Application of the following legislation:Forestry Law N° 7575; Environment Organic Law
N°7554; Regulation Decree N° 25721-MINAE; Decree N° 27998-MINAE (Principles, Criteria and
Indicators for the Sustainable Management of Secondary Forests and Forestry Certification in
Costa Rica); Executive Decree N° 27388-MINAE (Criteria and Indicators for the Use and
Management of Forests and Certification); Executive Decree N° 34559- MINAE, (Sustainability
Standards for the Management of Natural Forests); Regulations of Forestry Regencies; Decree N°
38444-MINAE; Executive Decree N° 25700-MINAE (ban for endangered tree species); Decree N°
38444-MINAE of 2014 (forestry regents); Biodiversity Law N° 7788 (creation of SINAC and
establishment of its functions and organic structure, Article 22); Indigenous Law No. 6172; Law N°
7316 Approval of ILO Convention 169; Convention on Biologic Diversity (CDB) ratified byLaw
N°7416; Application of Expropriations Law N° 9286.
 Safeguard plans: a) Prepare a Procedural Framework for Resources Restriction per OP 4.12 of the
BM. b) Prepare a Social Assessment Plan. c) Prepare a Plan for Indigenous peoples as applicable. d)
Prepare an Involuntary Relocation Framework according to OP 4.12 of the BM. In case of voluntary
submission to the forestry regime, the owner does not lose his right of ownership over the land; he
just submits it voluntarily to regulations that guarantee the protection of forests, and for that
purpose it must be recorded at the Registrar kept by SINAC. e) Prepare a Plan for Indigenous
peoples.
Risk axis 2. Absence of legal security, recognition and regularization of land tenure and carbon in
TI rights, ABRE zones, other private zones and public lands.
Actions that can generate environmental and/or social impact: 4.1 Address land tenure and the rights of
emission reduction in indigenous lands. 4.3 Address land tenure and rights of emission reduction in the
Public Sector. 4.4 Promote consistency of delimitation and demarcation rules in ABRE (Areas under Special
Regimes) zones.

Application of the following legislation: Environment Organic N°7554; Forestry Law N° 7575;
Biodiversity Law N° 7788; Indigenous Law N 6172; Expropriations Law N° 9286; Law N° 7316
ratification of Convention 169.
208

Safeguard plans: a) Prepare an Involuntary Relocation Framework according to OP 4.12 of the
BM. b) Prepare a Procedural Framework for access restriction. c) Prepare a land donation protocol.
d) Prepare a Social Assessment. e) Prepare a Plan for Indigenous peoples according to OP 4.10
Indigenous peoples of the BM.
Risk axis 3. Limitations in the modalities, amounts and scope of the existing financing
mechanisms, in particular the PSA and need of improving competitiveness of the sector.
Distribution of benefits to guarantee REDD+ social and environmental goals.
Actions that can generate environmental and/or social impact: 5.1 Forest ordering in all national territory
according to their contributions to the REDD+ goals. 5.2 Improve competitiveness of financing mechanisms
for forest and agro-forestry ecosystems in relation to other land uses.


Application of the following legislation: : Environment Organic N°7554; Forestry Law N° 7575;
Biodiversity Law N° 7788; Indigenous Law N 6172; Expropriations Law N° 9286; Law N° 7316
ratification of Convention 169; Convention on Biologic Diversity (CDB) ratified by Law N°7416.
Safeguard plans: a) Prepare a Social Assessment. b) Prepare a Planning Framework for Indigenous
peoples. C) Prepare a Plan for Indigenous peoples per OP 4.10Indigenous peoples of the BM.
Risk axis 5. Transparency, accountability, follow-up and consistency with the REDD+
implementation framework.
Actions that can generate environmental and/or social impact: 6.2 Implementation and follow-up of the
Environmental and Social Management Framework. 6.4 Incorporate the scope of gender, youth
participation and other relevant groups into the REDD+ strategy.
 Application of the following legislation: Biodiversity Law N° 7788; LawIndígena N° 6172; Law N°
7316 ratification of Convention 169; Biologic Diversity Convention (CDB) ratified by Law N°7416;
Law N°7416. Service Comptroller Offices Law.
 Safeguard plans: a) Perform a Social Assessment. b) Develop a Plan for Indigenous peoples per
the OP 4.10Indigenous peoples of BM.
As described above, the MGAS sets the modalities and procedures to manage possible substantial
environmental and social risks in the implementation of activities of the REDD+ National Strategy, by
associating them with their corresponding mitigation measures that use better practices. The MGAS also
included procedures for (i) the permanent consultation with the pertinent interested groups; (ii) the
measures for capacity strengthening; and (iii) the selection, assessment and institutional responsibility
criteria to manage environmental and social impact among others.
In addition to that, a series of self-assessment workshops have been developed with multiple interested
parties, including the preparation of the results report included in the R-Package. Other significant progress
achieved regarding social issues and the consultation plan of indigenous peoples of the REDD+ National
process include the following: (1) Setting a Participatory Focus; (2) Performance of analytical studies; (3)
209
Definition of a Consulation Plan for Indigenous Peoples; (4) Preparation of an Information, Feedback and
Disconformities Mechanism (MIRI in Spanish).
14.3. Description of the Feedback and Grievance Redress Mechanism (FGRM) in place and
possible actions to improve it
Existing mechanisms to receive claims and provide information
After analyzing the existing mechanisms in Costa Rica to solve claims of the population related to the
quality of service provided by the institutions of the Executive Branch, it is concluded that since 1992, Costa
Rica has an Ombudsman Office, institution in charge of caring for the conformity of the population with
regards to the public institutions and their duties assigned by law. The Ombudsman Office is entitled to
address non-compliance and non-conformity issues and to provide responses to the persons affected, by
asking the corresponding actions to the respective entity.
The Ombudsman Office of the Republic of Costa Rica has the National Services Comptroller’s Office
System, comprised by the service comptroller offices as ordered by Law in all public institutions to receive
claims and complaints and their processing as appropriate. Currently, the service comptrollers of the
Executive Branch are coordinated by the Ministry of Planning, which must submit a reporton the
performance and a summary of the claims filed by the users.
Complementary to the Ombudsman Office of the Republic and the National Services Comptroller’s Office,
the National Fund for Forest Financing is the pilot of an Information, Feedback and Disconformities
Mechanism (MIRI), a mechanism specifically designed for the REDD+ National Strategy and the Emission
Reduction Program. The MIRI responds to a participative process performed with the relevant
stakeholders, so its implementation responds to the conditions proper of each group. In this sense, its
contribution was important to set the reception and spread channels, prepare different use friendly
channels, and to prepare informational and promotional material in a language appropriate to each group.
This way, legitimacy, accessibility, transparency and capacity to address the claims are guaranteed.
Additionally, to guarantee better access, and upon request of the PIRS, an institutional link with the
Ministry of Agriculture and Cattle Farming was open so their offices act as a point to receive the forms i
addition to those of FONAFIFO. The response procedure and the resolution of disconformities is a
proceeding that is handled by the Services Comptroller of the Institution and it is done, according to Law,
within a term of 5-15 work days at a maximum, as the case may be, starting with the reception of the form
at the Comptroller Office. The relevant stakeholders are entitled of watching for its compliance at any time
they might consider it appropriate before that same instance and may have access to the reports issued
twice a year through the REDD+ Costa Rica web site 96.
Functioning of the Information, Feedback and Concerns Mechanism
The MIRI intends to implement an accessible and transparent information, feedback and disconformities
mechanism for the relevant stakeholders to favor the participation and dialogue to implement the REDD+
Costa Rica Strategy, respecting the existing legislation. The following figure shows a summary of the MIRI
operation process. .
96www.reddcr.go.cr
210
Organizationalco
mpromise
Figure 14.1.2. Macro process of the implementation of the Information, Feedback and Concerns
Mechanism.
To guarantee accessibility to the mechanism, it has the following channels:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Telephone line: a telephone line will be open at the headquarters of FONAFIFO to receive actions. Staff in
charge of receiving the telephone requests will comprehensive the form electronically, available at the REDD+
web site, or will receive the information in an electronic form that will be forwarded to the Service
Comptroller.
Online form:the REDD+ web site has a section for the relevant stakeholders to obtain a form and file their
questions, feedback or disconformity regarding the REDD+ process. This is a generic form to be used by all
relevant stakeholders. The platform designed is friendly and simple for the use of the relevant stakeholders.
Additionally, it has an option to consult about the situation of the processes through the web site in the
platform. Regarding transparency of the processes, the platform automatically issues statistics that will
support the preparation of reports by the Service Comptroller regarding processes filed by that means. As an
annex, the user manual of the platform is facilitated, exclusive for Comptroller staff and FONAFIFO. The user
of this platform will have a full copy of the form he/she sends with the action, as well as single number
assigned for follow-up.
Reception at sub-regional offices of MAG and FONAFIFO: FONAFIFO has nine regional offices available for
the use of MIRI, and MAG ahs 22, for a total of 32 offices throughout the country. Additionally, the Indigenous
Development Associations of the different indigenous lands have also been authorized to receive claims and
have the forms to facilitate access of the population to indigenous peoples, who can have the assistance of
the cultural mediators for due completion of the forms.
E-mail:The person that performs the action can send it directly to the Secretariat of REDD+ and the Service
Comptroller of FONAFIFO or use this means for follow-up of their actions filed.
Page 38 of thedocument Information, Feedback and Concerns Mechanism shows in detail the
implementation of this mechanism.
211
Reference to the Safeguard Information System
One of the potential applications of the Information, Feedback and Disconformities Mechanism is
contributing with information and feedback to the Safeguard Information System. The system design
contemplates keeping this information platform to receive feedback on how safeguards are being
addressed and respected during the implementation stage of the REDD+ National Strategy and the
Emission Reduction Program, as well as for the socialization of the drafts to be submitted.
Actions to improve the Information, Feedback and Grievance Mechanism
The Mechanism incorporates regular activities to assess the improvements that can be incorporated in its
design or functioning, and to facilitate a better access of the interested parties by broadening the
institutional cover to other central and regional offices of the Ministry of the Environment or through the
systematization of the most frequent actions filed. As of this date, there has been no active use of the
mechanism, so it is expected that the next stage will be to address the issue of better communication and
disclosure with the relevant stakeholders so that there are better elements for its subsequent
improvement.
212
15. Benefit sharing arrangements
15.1. Description of benefit-sharing arrangements
Costa Rica is currently preparing the political and conceptual framework, as well as the legal elements
required to guarantee an appropriate development and functioning of a Benefit Sharing Mechanism that
complies with the principles of equity, justice and participation of the relevant stakeholders. The
Mechanism will include potential investments in policies, actions and activities of the REDD+ National
Strategy, including those of the Emission Reduction Program. .
The Mechanism recognizes two main criteria for its functioning: 1) result-based payments received, from
the compliance of requirements set forth in the COP of the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change and of the FCPF, and 2) the distribution of benefits, responding to the sovereign decisions
of the country, according to its legislation and national circumstances. For the reception of result-based
payments, in the case of the FCPF and other similar mechanisms, it is necessary to have legal capacity for
the transfer of titles of the emission reductions. For the purposes of the FCPF, it will be negotiated and
agreed as part of the Commercial Conditions of the Emission Reduction Payments with the World Bank.
On the distribution of benefits, the country has defined that it should be addressed to public and private
owners, including indigenous peoples as communal owners, with property or possession rights that can be
verified and developing actions directly linked to the measurements to generate emission reductions.
Taking this into consideration, the Mechanism would fund the actions that directly or indirectly support
national efforts on reducing emissions coming from:
Public owners of Protected Wildlife Areas or areas which are part of the State Natural Heritage
managed by the Ministry of the Environment and Energy.
Other government institutions that own forested lands.
Private owners or possessors of lands with agreements previously signed.
Communal land owners (i.e. indigenous lands)
Costa Rica has not defined yet the monitoring type, scale, criteria, processes, terms and mechanisms for
the distribution of benefits, although it is expected that a significant amount of the resources will be
distributed among private and communal owners, particularly through strengthening the Environmental
Services Payment program, in which case the regulations are applied according to the national legal
framework, in special the Procedural Manual of the program. Before the signing of the Emission Reduction
Payment Agreement, the country will submit to the FCPF Carbon Fund a Benefit Sharing Plan.
Considering this, it is possible to anticipate that a significant proportion of the resources to be received as
REDD+ result-based payments will be managed by public institutions. It will be aligned with the applicable
legal framework for resource management by public entities, including the principles of transparency,
accountability to competent comptroller entities, in particular the Ministry of Finance and the Comptroller’s
213
Office of the Republic. Likewise, these provisions would be applicable to those non-government institutions
that receive public funds.
Some considerations been considered in the early design of the Mechanism have identified the intention of
financing the beneficiaries who directly contribute with the implementation of the policies, actions and
activities that address the drivers of deforestation and degradation.
In the case of the Emission Reduction Program, the Benefit Sharing Mechanism would work by using the
following financing programs, based on the valid legal framework and on the recommendations from
actors and sectors involved in the information and pre-consultation process of the REDD+ strategy:
Strengthening the Payment for Environmental Services Program in all its modalities, including
possible new modalities (i.e. payment for specialized environmental service for indigenous and
peasant lands and a payment for environmental services to public institutions 97). Currently, the
Payment for Environmental Services program includes the modalities of forest conservation,
sustainable sustainable management of forest and carbon stockss enhancements through
reforestation and the planting of trees in agro-forestry systems that can obtain any of the 16
specific modalities set in the respective operation regulations of the program. From the technical
and political perspective of the program, the Payment for Environmental Services program is
based on the identification of criteria that allow the prioritization of investments, following both
ecological and socio-economical criteria. From the ecological point of view, the priorities are
defined mainly by the need of protecting lands located in biological corridors and in sites where
conservation gaps have been identified by studies that are updated on a regular basis. Other
criteria consist on the importance of water conservation in the properties and of priority basins.
From the socio-economical point of view, small and medium owners are privileged, in particular
those located in the cantons with lower Human Development. The program will continue
supporting the achievement of other environmental benefits such as water conservation, the
protection of biodiversity and the maintenance of landscape beauty.
Design of new modalities or financial schemes 98 to address the needs and particular characteristics of
population segments showing difficulty to comply with the requirements of the Payment for
Environmental Services program. In particular, the new modalities or schemes are addressed to
small producers and peasants, so that entrepreneurship is promoted as well as the silvicultural and
business efficiency of all the production value-chain in the forest sector.
Identification of monetary and non-monetary investment opportunities to promote and increase
the participation of other relevant stakeholders in the implementation of policies, actions and
activities of REDD+. This includes communal actions, participative mechanisms to address
97 Still under
analysis process in Costa Rica.
new modalities or schemes will be designed as necessary, and considering their political and financial
feasibility.
98These
214
deforestation drivers and the strengthening of organization capacities of local communities and
indigenous lands.
Strengthening of investments in public lands and identification of financing mechanisms to promote
or broaden the participation of competent entities in the implementation of a variety of
investments, both monetary and non-monetary. The foregoing, to contribute with achieving the
goals and purposes of the REDD+ National Strategy and including the strengthening of the
existing mechanisms such as the Forestry Fund, the Fund for Sustainable Biodiversity of the
Ministry of the Environment and Energy or the program of Environmental Benefits Recognition of
the Ministry of Agriculture and Cattle Farming.
15.2. Summary of the process of designing the benefit-sharing arrangements
Benefit Sharing is one of the more relevant elements derived from the information and pre-consultation
process of the National REDD+ Strategy. The initial proposals of the Emission Reduction Program (ER-PIN)
were in a large extent centered in broadening the cover of the Payment for Environmental Services
program. Many representatives of the relevant stakeholders were concerned for the possible exclusion of
some segments of the population, which are unable to comply with the legal and technical requirements of
the program. These population segments include the poorest persons and those without consolidated
tenure rights over lands, as well as small owners with less than two forest hectares (i.e. minimum area
required to enter into the program). Another limitation of the Payment for Environmental Services program
is the recognition of only four environmental services in the Forestry Law in force. It excludes other benefits
such as sustainable land management and environmentally sound productive practices and/or oriented to
emission reductions.
Indigenous peoples stated their concerns related to the lack of clarification of ownership rights and the
presence of non-indigenous population in their lands. Other restrictions identified were the impossibility of
exercising their cultural practices in the management of forest resources and biodiversity. These
restrictions are originated on the Forestry Law and in the contracts of the Payment for Environmental
Services program.
Participative process to define additional needs in the distribution of benefits
During the initial consultation stages, small forest producers and the indigenous peoples started dialogues
with the Government to explore the possibility of new financing modalities. These new modalities would be
adapted to the specific needs and concerns of both population groups and would be aimed to defeating the
current restrictions posed by the Payment for Environmental Services Program. The proposal of the
indigenous lands highlights the need of defining investment plans of the resources to be obtained for their
contributions to REDD+ policies and actions according to investment priorities previously identified in
several areas including environmental, infrastructure, telecommunications, health, culture, etc. However,
not any financing proposal responding to new modalities will necessarily comply with the basic
requirements of quality and control consistent with the applicable legislation on public resource
management.
Payment for environmental services to small forestry producers
Its conception started during the Social and Environmental Strategic Assessment and would consider the
socio-economic and environmental conditions of the sector, in order to reduce poverty, and to present an
215
additional option to rural development. Facilitated by a consultant selected by the sector representatives, a
series of regional workshops was organized to identify the main elements of the new financing mechanism.
A total of 202 participants, in 5 different regions of the country were part of the process (134 males and 68
females). This sample represents a wide variety of relevant stakeholders (i.e. local associations for water
management, local development associations, producers associations and agricultural cooperatives,
assistance centers, unions, private foundations, government institutions and other technical assistance
entities). As a result, a proposal was received that will be subject of feasibility, political and technical
analysis, as well as the assessment of financial and operational implications. Through the Emission
Reduction Program, the design activities of the mechanism proposal will receive follow-up and political
dialogue will be promoted in order to design a mechanism that results satisfactory to the sector.
Payment for environmental services to indigenous lands
Its conception starts with the early REDD+ dialogue with the indigenous peoples and has continues up to
date. The representatives of indigenous territories and the Indigenous Development Associations, with the
facilitation of an indigenous consultant, participate in a permanent dialogue to identify the main
characteristics of the new financing mechanism. The process has been widely promoted by the
representatives of indigenous peoples. The REDD+ Secretariat will assess the necessary steps to identify
the potential legal, operational and financial implications of the mechanism, and of the need of increasing
the currently dialogues with the goal of integrating the results into the Benefit Sharing Mechanism of the
Emission Reduction Program. A specific proposal of Payments for Environmental Services has been
developed for the indigenous lands that results from the internal process in the lands, and therefore it is
culturally appropriate. During the second stage of dialogue, the technical, administrative, financial and
legal implications of the mechanism proposal must be analyzed, in order to guarantee consistency with the
current legal framework.
Payment for environmental services to public institutions
Beyond the current of REDD+ readiness process, it is necessary to develop an assessment to determine its
feasibility. A first analysis stage is the inventory and cadastre of public lands in the State Natural Heritage,
but also of those lands managed by public institutions not yet transferred to the Heritage. A specific
modality of payment for environmental services to institutions could be an option.
15.3. Description of the legal context of the benefit-sharing arrangements
Compliance of applicable laws, including the international conventions and agreements and customary law
The investments of results-based payments from the Emission Reduction Payment Agreement with the
Carbon Fund of the World Bank will take place according to the legislation in force, including international
rules and customary rights formally recognized by the national legal system. The Payment for
Environmental Services program is an instrument covered by the Forestry Law, with 18 years of effective
application and has received public and private investments. The program covers private and communal
owners of lands, but excludes public lands. Additionally, the Forest Fund and the Fund for Sustainable
Biodiversity and institutions covered by the legislation in force that could include a wide variety of
investments related to the implementation of the Emission Reduction Program
It is forecasted that additional arrangements will be needed to incorporate new financing modalities into
the legal framework in force. However, such considerations will depend on the results of the analysis and
dialogues pending development during the continuation of the readiness stage.
216
16. Non Carbon Benefits
16.1. Outline of potential Non-Carbon Benefits and identification of Priority Non-Carbon
Benefits
Prioritization of the Program’s non-carbon benefits
The primary co-benefits of the Emission Reduction Program have been defined by the current legal
framework in Costa Rica and they correspond to those generated in the Protected Wildlife Areas System, in
forest lands part of the State Natural Heritage and in the Payment for Environmental Services program.
Specifically for the Payment for Environmental Services Program, there are three main co-beneficiaries:
landscape beauty, conservation of biodiversity and water protection; however, the environmental service of
land conservation derived from the Land Conservation Law and the social and environmental benefits
derived from implementing the Payment for Environmental Services program in indigenous lands and local
communities are recognized also.
One of the best recognized co-benefits is related to the organizational capacity and improved participation
due to the implementation of the programs and public policies. For instance, the Payment for
Environmental Services program serves for forest organizations to actively participate. Additionally, they
promote productive activities in the sector chain, such as forest nurseries and the genetic improvement of
species for reforestation or induced regeneration, both with commercial and native species. In many cases,
these programs are linked to communal programs on environmental education and cantonal tree planting
projects along roads in country.
The environmental services recognized by the Payment for Environmental Services program, as the
provisions of the Forestry Law, are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
GHG mitigation (benefit)
Water protection (co-benefit)
Biodiversity conservation (co-benefit)
Landscape beauty (co-benefit)
There are multiple environmental benefits at a series of scales in Protected Wildlife Areas. For instance, the
conservation of biodiversity, the protection of water resources, the contribution to biological connectivity,
the protection of volcanic areas, the prevention of fires, the conservation of lands in marine-coastal areas.
All these co-benefits contribute to increase resilience before climate change, both of ecosystems and of
communities. These same environmental services are promoted through the Payments for Environmental
Services program in private lands.
In the case of PES investments in indigenous territories, due to the communal nature of land tenure, the
social and economic impact of non-carbon benefits is easily identifiable, since organized communities
decide in a meeting the destiny given to the resources received, and in many cases they are invested in
education, health, infrastructure improvements such as roads and bridges, etc. It is not the same case with
private owners, who individually decide the destiny of the payments received.
217
Improvement of co-beneficiaries during the implementation of the Program
The conservation of primary forests and the increase of forest cover in country will have a positive effect in
other environmental, social and economic co-benefits of the populations linked to the Emission Reduction
Program activities and the country in general. As a whole, the Program looks to promote co-benefits to
improve resilience of the ecosystems and of the populations dependent on forests before climate change.
The prioritization criteria of investments in the Payment for Environmental Services program are still
centered on two main pillars: a) the protection of the forest zones in areas where biodiversity conservation
gaps have been identified, and b) in areas where it is necessary to improve the biological connectivity
between Protected Wildlife Areas. Additionally, the program privileges water resource protection zones,
fundamental for biodiversity and communities.
Description of how non-carbon benefits are culturally appropriate, take the gender scope into account and
are inclusive in intergenerational terms
During the pre-consultation stage, the relevant stakeholders identified potential positive impacts or cobenefits that can derive from the implementation of REDD+. Most of the positive impacts highlight the
improvement that broadening sustainable management activities of forest resources resulting from REDD+
might mean in the maintenance and improvement of the country natural heritage in a wide sense,
addressing different dimensions of the national environmental policies, including the conservation of
biodiversity and of water resources, stop land erosion, improve the integrity of Protected Wildlife Areas,
the restoration of landscapes, etc. The co-benefits related to the potential broadening of the financing
mechanisms beyond PES were also mentioned, that can play a significant role for the better distribution of
richness and contribute to the improvement of life quality in rural populations such as indigenous peoples
and small peasants. The participation of the population in general in actions towards a better recognition of
the virtues of sustainable environmental practices, including the possibility to increase their participation in
control and protection actions of natural resources and fire management, the generation of additional work
sources in rural areas and improved access to resources according to their traditional use, particularly in
indigenous lands.
Additionally, the relevant stakeholders highlighted the potential that REDD+ has to contribute in solving or
mitigate problems derived from lack of land tenure right regularization in several areas of the country, in
particular in indigenous lands and in lands under special regimes, without ignoring the need of
strengthening institutional capacities in several areas, both governmental and non-governmental, allowing
the State to provide better services to citizenship and to accompany them in their efforts, and to assist in
the generation of capacities in social sectors, control organizations and communal and private groups that
will be key players in the broadening of the REDD+ activities, so the national goals are achieved.
The better valuation of the forest and the creation of new or more inclusive compensation mechanisms
through the recognition of environmental services and similar may have a positive impact in the reduction
of migratory processes, especially of young populations, towards urban centers, most of the times looking
for better work and income conditions, which weakens the traditional peasant family structure and that
promotes abandonment of the production culture. The improvement of socio-economic benefits of the
rural producers contributes to maintaining peasant family integration and the intergenerational transfer of
rights and of productive culture, which is also applicable to indigenous communities.
218
Regarding gender inclusiveness in the co-benefits of the program, some pilot experiences have been
developed, especially in indigenous communities that will be used as referent to broaden efforts in other
socio-economic realities in country. In this sense, the development of a gender strategy is conceived for the
second stage of the readiness phase, in order to guarantee that the strategy and the Emissions Reduction
Program incorporate this dimension as a transversal axis.
16.2. Approach for providing information on Priority Non-Carbon Benefits
The National System for Conservation Areas has promoted since May, 2004 a Proposal for Territorial
Planning for the Conservation of Biodiversity in Costa Rica 99; the initiative has had the support and
cooperation of prestigious national and international organizations and projects. 100. This initiative has
produced two fundamental products for the definition of biodiversity conservation national strategies and
to define investment prioritization criteria through the payment for environmental services program:
analysis of conservation gaps and need for connectivity trails. The gaps are areas considered important for
the conservation of biophysical environments and that are not under any effective conservation initiative
yet, either public or private. The identification of the areas with gaps is associated to the need of
maintaining representative samples of the natural environments biodiversity in the country and the
conservation goals defined for each case, which is specified in the methodology of the Proposal. In addition
to the conservation gaps, the Proposal analyses the connectivity at the national level in which lower cost
trails are suggested to establish biological corridors, considering that the alteration of the surface and the
presence of human activity impose different difficulty levels for the displacement of plants or animals
species or species groups from one place to another, depending on the type of alteration or human
intervention in each place.
Based on the analyses derived from the Proposal, the parameters are set to determine the investment
priorities of the Payment for Environmental Services program, given that the resources available are not
sufficient as to attend all the demand. The main goal of the Payment for Environmental Services Program is
investing in areas where diversity conservation gaps have been identified and attend the biological
connectivity requirements amongst Protected Wildlife Areas in country, and to privilege the assignment of
Payments for Environmental Services to those lands in Protected Wildlife Areas that have not been paid by
the State and that are subject to use restrictions. In summary, the criteria are not exclusively carbon; there
is a special emphasis given to social and environmental co-benefits.
Since in the case of Payment for Environmental Services three environmental services are incorporated in
addition to the carbon benefits and that this mechanism will be used as the main axis of the Emission
Reduction Program, Costa Rica will provide regular information on the generation or improvement of noncarbon benefits through the mechanisms agreed, as produced with the existing monitoring information
systems of the Payments for Environmental Services program.
The development of a specific monitoring system of non-carbon benefits has not been completed as of this
date; however, it must be mentioned that at the moment, the National Fund for Forest Financing will
99 Also
called Project GRUAS II.
National Biodiversity Institute, The Nature Conservancy, Conservation International, the National Fund of Forest
Financing and the project Forest Conservation and Sustainable Development in Buffer Zones in the North Caribbean of
Costa Rica.
100i.e.
219
continue applying its management systems of the Payment for Environmental Services program for those
purposes. With resources of the Ecomercados II project, the identification of more specific indicators was
begun by the National Biodiversity Institute, but its application costs at the level of property are extremely
high. It is expected that in the following stages some indicators will be developed to be incorporated into
the monitoring system (Section 9) that are appropriate and that may be used as part of the national system
of environmental indicators. Other relevant elements to non-carbon benefits will be derived from the
follow-up system of the policies and actions contemplated.
220
17. Title to emission reductions
17.1. Authorization of the ER Program
Name of entity
Ministry of the Environment and Energy
Main contact person
Dr. Édgar Gutierrez-Espeleta
Title
Minister
Address
Vista Palace building, Street 25. Avenues 8 and 10, San José, Costa Rica
Telephone
+506-22334533
Email
[email protected]
Website
www.minae.go.cr
Reference to the decree,
law or other type of
decision that identified this
entity as the national
authority on REDD+ that
can approve ER Programs
The appointment of Dr.Edgar Gutiérrez Espeleta was issued by agreement
N° 001-P, of May 8, 2014, issued by the Presidency of the Republic. The
Minister of Environment and Energy is entitled to contracts or agreements
on behalf of his Ministry, per the Political Constitution and the General
Law of Public Administration of 5/2/78.
17.2. Transfer of Title to ERs
Legal considerations for the transfer of titles to emission reductions
Emission reduction from deforestation and the regeneration of forests is done by the forest owners, either
a natural or a legal person, and this is based on the Costa Rican legislation, the Constitutional principle on
private property reflected in article 45, developed in the common and special legislation related to the
payment for environmental services set forth in articles 3 paragraph k) and 46 and 47 of the Forestry Law in
force. Under this condition as owners, and in the exercise of their dominion competencies, they will transfer
the Ministry of Environment and Energy the capacity to claim or negotiate over their rights to emission
reductions.
Therefore, the competent entity to exercise the claim and transfer of titles for emission reduction will be,
according to the Forestry Law and the Biodiversity Law, the State Forestry Administration. As set forth in
article 5 of the Forestry Law, the institution in charge is the Ministry of the Environment and Energy and its
two competent offices per the Regulations to Forestry Law, Executive Decree 25721-MINAE are the
National Fund for Forest Financing and the National System of Conservation Areas.
This way, the State Forestry Administration will be entitled to transfer titles of emission reductions, in the
following cases: a) as owner of the emission reductions produced in Protected Wildlife Areas; b) in private
lands by virtue of titles derived from the assignment of rights on environmental services agreements101
101 Like
the rights assignment that takes place through an agreement between the land owner and the National Fund of
Forest Financing, in order to transfer the rights on environmental services during the duration of the agreement. For
instance, clause sixth of the forest protection agreement for the Payment for Environmental Services program waives
221
either in PSA agreements or other similar; c) in lands owned by the State institutions and national reserves;
and d) in indigenous lands that have granted right assignments through payment for environmental
services agreements.
Plan for transferring titles to the Carbon Fund and implications of land tenure regimes and resources
Considering that in Costa Rica the Emission Reduction Program is country-wide, the Entity of the Program
can only transfer the titles of emission reductions taking place in public lands and in the case of private
lands (owners inside or outside of indigenous lands) are those that though an agreement or any other legal
instrument have legally assigned the title to emission reductions. For this reason, the Entity of the Program
will not be able to show the capacity of transferring the title on the total accounting area 102.
In principle, the percentage of national territory in which a transfer of title of emission reductions would be
possible is 32,2%(1.645.173 hectares). This includes 1.332.677 (26%) hectares in Protected Wildlife Areas,
299.720 hectares (6%) under forest conservation of the Payment for Environmental Services program and
12.776 hectares (0,2%) under forest regeneration of the same program. Without prejudice of the foregoing,
the executing entity of this project reserves the right of including in the program area other areas outside of
the ones described, as long as they are incorporated by means of an agreement of payment for
environmental services and another similar to that with its legitimate owners.
Identified conflicts on tenure regarding the transfer of title
Regarding land tenure and non-recorded rights, there are some problems related to lands under the
administration of State institutions, as the case of lands managed by the Port Management and Economic
Development Board of the Atlantic Coast, the border zone, the title projects of the Rural Development
Institute103 and the possession rights of lands considered State Natural Heritage such as the MaritimeTerrestrial Zone. In these cases, the legislation in force is uncertain regarding the right of title on behalf of
their possessors. These situations have taken place because specific heritage has been attributed to some
institutions without previously analyzing land tenure, those lands have been occupied by private parties or
there has been tolerance of the State and lack of knowledge of the civil society on the legislation in force.
The potential solution of these conflicts will depend on the nature of the negotiations set for the payment
of results verified within the National REDD+ Strategy and the Emission Reduction Program (i.e. flexibility
level set in the general and commercial terms of the Payment for Emission Reduction Agreement within the
framework of the FCPF Carbon Fund). The experience in country through the Payment for Environmental
Services program has shown that most of these tenure conflicts cannot be solved at the administrative level
and it has been necessary to go to the judiciary. Other conflicts require solution at the legislative level.
Related to the foregoing, there are two implications. In the first one, the properties show no legal conflict,
in which case the assessment of their condition will lead to the approval of their participation in the
program, with no obstacles for the transfer of title, which are the most. In the second case, the properties
do show conflicts related to land tenure, which will also have implications, since in these cases the owners
that the National Fund for Forest Financing be expressly entitled to commercialize in any way and with any person,
natural or legal, national or international, regarding the rights assigned.
102
See indicator 36.3 of the Carbon Fund Methodological Framework
Agrarian Development Institute
103Previously
222
do not have sufficient support accrediting their right and therefore it is not possible to legally execute the
transfer of title, and for that reason they will not be included in the Program.
Measurements that would be defined to enable the transfer of titles on areas with difficulties
For private areas outside of the Payment for Environmental Services program, Costa Rica will develop legal
mechanisms for the assignment of rights, if so decided by private owners. The ongoing legal study will
determine the options for this effect, which will be operational prior to a transfer to the FCPF Carbon Fund.
In case of lands under legal dispute, the Emission Reduction Program will support the measurement as
possible.
Environmental integrity of emission reductions
Due to the fact that the Carbon Fund requires of the transfer of title of emission reductions, and in case
Costa Rica incurs in a transfer to the World Bank, it will only be for single emission reductions not used for
other purposes, such as the recognition of payments resulting from REDD+ through bilateral or multilateral
agreements, the Costa Rican Carbon Domestic Market or other mitigation initiative, such as the nationally
appropriate mitigation actions in course. However, the emission reductions will be reflected in the GHG
national inventory and might be considered for the proposal of the national determined international
contributions.
223
18. Data management and registry systems
18.1. Participation under other GHG initiatives
Other transfers or transfer plans of emission reductions and other GHG mitigation initiatives
Costa Rica has the project “Carbon Sequestration in Small and Medium Farms in the Brunca Region, Costa
Rica”, recorded in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change within the Clean
Development Mechanism, which is producing emission reductions with aforestation/reforestation
activities. This project is expected to generate a total emission reductions of 176.050 t CO2e in a 20 year
term, o 8.803 t CO2e per year, in an area of 892,42 hectares during period 2006-2026.
In relation to the aforementioned project, Costa Rica has transferred to the Clean Development Mechanism
of the CER in serial rank CR-6-961312-1-1-1-7572 al CR-6-984395-1-1-1-7572, according to the monitoring
report of August 2006 through December 2012.
This is the only project formally recorded under the Convention or other official entity. At this time, the
Emission Reduction Program does not contemplate the 892,42 hectares included in the project nor the
176.050 t CO2e produced up to 2012. Due to the scope of the reference level presented to the Carbon Fund,
this is a double-accounting, which will be solved once the reference level is recalculated based on the
results of the GHG national inventory presented in the framework of the first Updated Biannual Report
before the Convention. As mentioned in Section 8, the gas inventory will be complete by October 31, 2015.
18.2. Data management and Registry systems to avoid multiple claims to ERs
Existing records applicable to REDD+
Currently, the Payment for Environmental Services program keeps full record of all properties that have
formalized an agreement with FONAFIFO. The information maintained in this registry complies with the
requirements set forth in Indicator 37.2, i, ii, not including aspects related to carbon reservoirs and the
reference level, however, said records can be adjusted including the information missing in order to record
the REDD+ projects.
Another important registrar for REDD+ is the State National Heritage registrar. The National System of
Conservation Areas attends and guarantees that the legal provisions issued in the Environment Organic
Law, the Forestry Law, the Biodiversity Law on acquisitions, management and administration of lands of
the State Natural Heritage within Protected Wildlife Areas be executed under technical, administrative and
legal principles and procedures in force.
As of this date there is no Registry of Transactions; however, it is completely necessary to develop it, since
it has been defined it will be a country registry centralized in the Climate Change Office, that will comply
with all the requirements of transparency and traceability necessary and that must be designed including all
the sectors that take part in emission reductions such as energy, industry and forestry.
However, it must be mentioned that in relation to the Domestic Carbon Market, there is an ongoing
successful experience operated by FONAFIFO and in coordination with the Climate Change Office, Costa
Rica is in the process of designing a national registry of emission reductions to comply with the registration
requirements of the Domestic Carbon Market. The registry is expected to be applicable to REDD+ as well.
224
Arrangements to avoid multiple claims to emission reduction titles
The country reports its emission reductions and mitigation impacts in the Biennial Update Report before
the Convention. Both emissions and absorptions in the GHG inventory are reported there transparently and
complete, as well as the progress made by the country in reducing emissions in all sectors. This includes the
AFOLU sector and the results obtained in the implementation of REDD+. Since the Update Biennial Report
is presented every 2 years, it will be possible to report before the Carbon Fund with the same periodicity
until 2050 or upon the conclusion of the Payment for Emission Reduction Agreement.
Program Management System and Project Data
Costa Rica does not have an integrated program and project management system; each institution involved
in the REDD+ program must construct the registrar for its own programs and projects. In this sense, the
forestry sector already has a registrar for the Payment for Environmental Services Program kept by
FONAFIFO and that includes information on all the properties that have formalized an agreement with the
institution. This registrar includes the registration data of the property, cadastral plan officially recorded at
the national cadastre, owner´s name that can be a natural or legal person, the political-administrative
location, the property total area and the effective area on which the agreement as executed; there is also a
geo-referenced digital file of the property based on FONAFIFO’s geo-spatial database. Since 1997, the
program has registered over 14.713 agreements with an area of 1.052.867 hectares, in addition to the
payment for the establishment of over 6.015.710 trees in agro-forestry systems. There is also the registrar
of the State Natural Heritage, related to the management and protection of Protected Wildlife Areas. In
addition to those, as part of the management of the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC), all
actions responding to the different forest protection and management programs are registered and receive
follow-up; these include the actions related to fire prevention and control and illegal clearing.
According to indicator 37.1. of the Methodological Framework of the Carbon Fund and the national
circumstances, Costa Rica will use the Biennial Update Report as a program and data management system
of the project, as defined above. The transparency and formality with which the Convention is informed is
sufficient to assure the Carbon Fund on the emission reductions transferred or managed and of the ongoing
projects and programs in country. It is important to highlight the commitment the country has to
guarantee environmental integrity and to avoid double-accounting.
The Biennial Update Report provides information on the entity producing the emission reductions, the
geographical field of these emission reductions, the methods and assumptions of accounting and the
reference level used, in compliance with indicator 37.2. Likewise, the Biennial Update Report is a public
document and follows indicator 37.3. Finally, since the Biennial Update Report is subject to revision
processes by the Secretariat through International Consultation and Analysis within the framework of the
Convention, there is compliance of indicator 37.4.
These considerations are both to comply with the requirements of a program and data management
system of the project, and for the registration of emission reductions, in compliance with criterion 38.
225
Annex 1: Financial Projections Table for ER-PD
This Annex provides the financial projections for Costa Rica’s REDD+ Program using the inputs detailed in
the “Costa Rica REDD+ Financial Plan Methods and Detailed Inputs” document which has sensitive
information and has provided confidentially to the government of Costa Rica and Carbon Fund/World Bank.
The budgets prior to 2015 are incomplete.
226
Chart A1.Financial projections of the Emission Reduction Program.
SUMMARY FINANCIALS (USD)
PROGRAM
2010
1 Yr
Tons Available for Sale (Net*) - by Vintage
2011
2 Yr
-
Verification Years
Tons Available for Sale (Net*) - per Verification
OPENING CASH BALANCE
-
$0
ER PROGRAM CASH FLOW OUT
REDD+ Program Management Costs
Staffing Costs
$59,841
Key Consultancies and Studies
Travel for Program Management
$0
Stakeholder Engagement
Safeguards Monitoring and Redress
Benefits Management
$0
Emission Reduction Quantification, Verification and Issuance
$0
Total REDD+ Program Management
$59,841
REDD+ Program Measures
FINAFIFO Payment of Environmental Services $27,573,537
(PSA)
SINAC Increased Governance/Size of Protected$43,692,435
Areas
TOTAL ER PROGRAM CASH FLOW OUT
$71,325,813
PROGRAM FUNDING SOURCES CASH IN
Reference Price per ton
ER Sales Cash In
Sources of Funds to FINAFIFO
Sources of Funds to SINAC
TOTAL PROGRAM CASH FLOW IN
NET PROGRAM CASH FLOW (NPCF)
($59,841)
$
6.50 $
$0
$27,573,537
$43,692,435
$71,265,972
($59,841)
CASH BALANCE (CUMULATIVE NPCF LESS PAYOUTS)
2012
3 Yr
2013
4 Yr
-
-
2014
5 Yr
-
2015
6 Yr
-
2016
7 Yr
-
2017
8 Yr
-
9,535,189
-
-
-
-
-
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
($5,036,310)
V
9,535,189
($9,418,478)
$59,841
$119,682
$179,523
$299,205
$0
$0
$0
$755,512
$0
$1,498,541
$0
$0
$59,841
$0
$0
$119,682
$0
$0
$935,035
$0
$0
$1,797,746
$396,307
$233,333
$30,880
$867,385
$477,240
$0
$861,400
$2,866,545
$416,122
$233,333
$30,240
$279,149
$111,090
$0
$230,000
$1,299,935
$436,928
$153,333
$30,220
$231,164
$116,645
$0
$1,473,759
$2,442,050
$28,108,704
$39,203,842
$67,372,387
$28,544,629
$46,944,040
$75,608,351
$29,444,282
$50,918,734
$81,298,051
($59,841)
$2,845,354
$2,948,350
2018
9 Yr
2019
10 Yr
-
2,522,896
-
$43,980,909
V
2,522,896
$35,839,575
2020
11 Yr
2021
12 Yr
-
2,522,896
-
$39,475,241
V
2,522,896
$21,463,930
2022
13 Yr
2023
14 Yr
-
2,522,896
-
$22,505,856
V
2,522,896
$7,823,359
2024
15 Yr
2025
16 Yr
-
2,522,896
-
$10,443,304
V
2,522,896
($6,088,505)
$458,775
$481,714
$505,799
$531,089
$557,644
$585,526
$614,802
$645,542
$29,560
$292,474
$122,477
$0
$230,000
$1,133,286
$29,560
$292,584
$128,601
$0
$1,148,145
$2,080,603
$29,560
$293,994
$135,031
$0
$861,400
$1,825,784
$29,560
$294,004
$141,782
$0
$1,123,145
$2,119,580
$29,560
$294,904
$148,871
$0
$230,000
$1,260,979
$29,560
$294,004
$156,315
$0
$1,123,145
$2,188,550
$29,560
$543,404
$164,131
$0
$230,000
$1,581,897
$29,560
$543,404
$172,337
$0
$1,754,545
$3,145,388
$27,875,450 $33,051,038 $33,129,045 $34,583,292 $46,329,976 $37,665,482 $40,222,923 $40,132,581 $40,445,272 $42,444,415 $44,543,516 $46,747,571
$65,418,209 $71,960,029 $79,156,032 $87,071,636 $95,778,799 $105,356,679 $115,892,347 $119,369,117 $122,950,191 $126,638,697 $130,437,858 $134,350,993
$95,091,405 $108,739,012 $113,815,012 $125,570,737 $143,472,060 $146,250,908 $158,802,454 $162,744,423 $164,886,442 $172,394,806 $176,793,270 $185,998,498
($1,797,746)
($5,036,310)
($4,382,169)
$53,399,388
($8,141,334)
$3,635,666
($18,011,312)
$1,041,926
($14,682,497)
$2,619,945
($16,531,809)
$1,033,971
6.50 $
6.50 $
6.50 $
6.50 $
6.50 $
6.50 $
6.50 $
6.50 $
6.50 $
7.00 $
7.28 $
7.57 $
7.87 $
8.19 $
8.52
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 $61,978,730
$0 $16,398,821
$0 $18,366,680
$0 $19,865,401
$0 $21,486,417
$28,108,704 $28,544,629 $29,444,282 $27,875,450 $33,051,038 $33,129,045 $34,583,292 $46,329,976 $37,366,943 $36,980,666 $38,494,880 $40,071,412 $41,712,841 $43,421,857 $45,201,258
$39,203,842 $49,909,076 $54,802,119 $65,418,209 $70,651,665 $76,303,798 $82,408,102 $89,000,751 $96,120,811 $103,810,475 $106,924,790 $110,132,533 $113,436,509 $116,839,605 $120,344,793
$67,312,546 $78,453,705 $84,246,402 $93,293,659 $103,702,703 $109,432,843 $178,970,124 $135,330,726 $149,886,575 $140,791,142 $163,786,349 $150,203,945 $175,014,751 $160,261,461 $187,032,468
($59,841)
$2,845,354
$2,948,350
($1,797,746) ($5,036,310) ($4,382,169) $53,399,388
($8,141,334)
$3,635,666 ($18,011,312)
$1,041,926 ($14,682,497)
$2,619,945 ($16,531,809)
$1,033,971
($5,036,310)
($9,418,478)
$43,980,909
$35,839,575
$39,475,241
$21,463,930
$22,505,856
$7,823,359
$10,443,304
($6,088,505)
($5,054,534)
227
References mentioned (*Intentionally left in their original
languages*)
Agresta, Dimap, Universidad de Costa Rica, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, (2015.a). Informe Final: Generating a
consistent historical time series of activity data from land use change for the development of Costa Rica’s
REDD plus reference level: Protocolo metodológico. Informe de consultoría preparado para el Gobierno de
Costa Rica bajo el Fondo de Carbono del Fondo Cooperativo para el Carbono de los Bosques (FCPF). 44 p.
Agresta, Dimap, Universidad de Costa Rica, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, (2015.b). Índice de cobertura como base
para la estimación de la degradación y aumento de existencias de carbono: Generating a consistent historical
time series of activity data from land use change for the development of Costa Rica’s REDD plus reference
level. Informe de consultoría preparado para el Gobierno de Costa Rica bajo el Fondo de Carbono del Fondo
Cooperativo para el Carbono de los Bosques (FCPF). 18 p.Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2015-2018
Aide, T., M. Clark, H. Grau, D. López, M. Levy, D. Rehacer, M. Bonilla, G. Riner, M. Andrade, y M. Muñiz, (2013).
Deforestación y Reforestación de América Latina y el Caribe (2001-2010). Biotropica 45: 262-271.
Andam, K., P. Ferraro y M. Hanauer. (2013). Los efectos de los sistemas de áreas protegidas en la restauración de
ecosistemas: un diseño cuasi-experimental para estimar el impacto del sistema de áreas protegidas de Costa
Rica en la regeneración de los bosques. Conservation Letters 6: 317-323.
Andam, K., P. Ferraro, A. Pfaff, A. Sanchez-Azofeifa y J. Robalino, (2008). Measurement the effectiveness of protected
area networks in reducing deforestation. PNAS 105: 16089-16094.
Brockett, CD; Gottfried, RR., (2002). State policies and the conservation of forest cover: lessons from contrasting
public-policy arrangements in Costa Rica. Latin America Research Review 3(1):7-40.
Caldwell, J., (1986). Routes to low mortality in poor countries. Population and Development Review 12: 171–220.
Canty, M. J. y A. A. Nielsen, (2008). Automatic radiometric normalization of multitemporal satellite imagery with the
iteratively re-weighted MAD transformation. Remote Sensing of Environment 112 (2008):1025-1036
CDI (Carbon Decisions International), (2015.a). Recomendaciones para la estrategia REDD+ y la carbono neutralidad.
Informe de consultoría preparado para el Gobierno de Costa Rica bajo el Fondo de Carbono del Fondo
Cooperativo para el Carbono de los Bosques (FCPF). 17 p.
CDI (Carbon Decisions International), (2015.b). Nivel de referencia de emisiones y remociones forestales de Costa Rica
y metodología empleada para construirlo. Informe preparado para el Gobierno de Costa Rica bajo el Fondo
de Carbono del Fondo Cooperativo para el Carbono de los Bosques (FCPF). 223 p.
CDI (Carbon Decisions International), (2015.c). Análisis de significancia de los cambios de existencias de carbono en
bosques que permanecieron bosques. Informe de consultoría preparado para el Gobierno de Costa Rica bajo
el Fondo de Carbono del Fondo Cooperativo para el Carbono de los Bosques (FCPF). 12 p.
CDI (Carbon Decisions International), (2015.d). Patrones y factores de cambio de la cobertura forestal natural de Costa
Rica, 1987-2023. Informe preparado para el Gobierno de Costa Rica bajo el Fondo de Carbono del Fondo
Cooperativo para el Carbono de los Bosques (FCPF). 57 p.
Cifuentes, M., (2008). Aboveground Biomass and Ecosystem Carbon stocks in Tropical Secondary Forests Growing in
Six Life Zones of Costa Rica. Oregon State University. School of Environmental Sciences. 2008. 195 p
Cordero J. y E. Paus, (2008). Foreign Investment and Economic Development in Costa Rica: The Unrealized Potential.
Working Group on Development and Environment in the Americas. Discussion Paper Number 13. Tuft
University.
228
Cruz, M., C. Meyer, R. Repetto y R. Woodward, (1992). Population growth, poverty, and environmental stress: frontier
migration in the Philippines and Costa Rica. World Resources Institute. Washington, D.C., 92 p.
Cunia, T., (1987). Error of forest inventory estimates: its main components. In E.H. Whraton & T. Cunia, eds., Estimating
tree biomass regressions and their error. Proceedings of the workshop on tree biomass regression functions
and their contribution to the error of forest inventory estimates, May 26–30, 1986, Syracuse, N.Y. – Part E.
Broomall, PA, USA, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report
no. NE-117, pp. 1–14. 34, 39, 46, 184
Chave, J., Condit, R., Aguilar, S., Hernandez, A., Lao, S. & Perez, R., (2004). Error propagation and scaling for tropical
forest biomass estimates. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B Biol. Sci., 359(1443): 409–420.
Eguiguren-Velepucha, P. A., (2013). Los efectos de intervenciones forestales y la variabilidad climática sobre la
dinámica a largo plazo de bosques tropicales en el noreste de Costa Rica. Turrialba (Costa Rica) : CATIE , 2013
Fagan M., R. DeFries, S. Sesnie, J. Arroyo, W. Walke, C. Soto, R. Chazdon y A. Sanchun, (2013). Land-cover dynamics
following a deforestation ban in northern Costa Rica. Environmental Research Letters 8: 34017-34025.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), (1990). Forest Resource Assessment 1990. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations. Roma.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), (2012). Forest Resource Assessment 2012. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations. Roma.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), UNDP (United Nations Development Program) and UNEP (United Nations
Environment Program), (2015). Technical considerations for Forest Reference Emission Level and/or Forest
Reference Level construction for REDD+ under the UNFCCC. 31 p. http//www.un-redd.org
FONAFIFO (Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento Forestal), (2015). - Informe Final - Aumentando los acervos de carbono
en productos de madera y derivados en Costa Rica.
GFA Consulting group, (2010). Estudio del estado de la producción sostenible y propuesta de mecanismos permanentes
para el fomento de la producción sostenible.
Cosnultorías SP-12-2009. 417 p.
(http://www.mag.go.cr/bibliotecavirtual/a00187.pdf)
GOFC-GOLD (Global Observation of Forest and Land-cover Dynamics), (2014). A sourcebook of methods and
procedures for monitoring and reporting anthropogenic GHG emissions and absorptions associated with
deforestation, gains and losses of carbon stockss in forests remaining forests, and forestation. GOFC-GOLD
Report version COP20-1, (GOFC-GOLD Land-cover Project Office, Wageningen University, The Netherlands).
(http://www.gofcgold.wur.nl/redd/sourcebook/GOFC-GOLD_Sourcebook.pdf)
Hidalgo, J. C., (2014). Growth without Poverty Reduction: The Case of Costa Rica. Bulletin N. 18. Washington DC, CATO
Institute, 6 p.
Holdridge, L.R., (1966). The Life Zone System, Adansonia VI: 2: 199.
Kull, C., C. y T. Ibrahim Meredith, (2007). Transiciones forestales tropicales y globalización: el neoliberalismo, la
migración, el turismo y los programas internacionales de conservación. Sociedad y Recursos Naturales 20:
723-737
Locher, U., (1997). Migraciones y cambios medioambientales en Costa Rica desde 1927. En L. Rosero-Bixby et al. (Eds.).
De los Mayas a la planificacion familiar: demografia del istmo. San Jose, Costa Rica, Editorial de la
Universidad de Costa Rica, Programa Centroamericana de Poblacion. Pp. 135-56.
Lutz, E., M. Vedova, H. Martínez, L. San Román, R. Vázquez, A. Alvarado, L. Merino, R. Celis, J. Huising, (1993)
Interdisciplinary Fact-Finding on Current Deforestation in Costa Rica. Environment Working Paper 61. World
Bank, Washington, DC.
Nalin, K., M. Mani y L. Constantino, (2004). Beneficios Económicos y Ambientales de la eliminación de registro de
exportación Bans - El caso de Costa Rica. La Economía Mundial 27: 609-624.
229
Perez, S. y F. Protti, (1978). Comportamiento del sector forestaI durante el período 1950-1977. Oficina de Planificación
Sectorial Agropecuaria. San José, Costa Rica.
Picard N., Saint-André L., Henry M., (2012). Manual for building tree volume and biomass allometric equations: from
field measurement to prediction. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, and
Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement, Montpellier, 215
pp
Rosero-Bixby, L. y A. Palloni, (1998) Population and Deforestation in Costa Rica. Population and Environment 20: 149178.
Sader, S. y A. Joyce (1988). Deforestation Rates and Trends in Costa Rica, 1940 to 1983. Biotropica 20:11-19.
Schedlbauer, J., (2007). Forest ecosystem responses to edge effects and secondary forest development in northeastern
Costa Rica: Implications for conservation. PhD Dissertation. College of Graduate Studies, University of Idaho,
y Postgraduate School, Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE). 94 p.
Sierra, R. y E. Russman, (2006). Sobre la eficacia de los pagos por servicios ambientales: Una evaluación de la
conservación de los bosques en la Península de Osa, Costa Rica. Economía Ecológica 59: 131-141
Van Breugel, M., Ransijn, J., Craven, D., Bongers, F. & Hall, J.S., (2011). Estimating carbon stocks in secondary forests:
Decisions and uncertainties associated with allometric biomass models. For. Ecol. Manag., 262(8): 1648–1657.
40, 43, 46, 50
Vega-Araya, E., (2014). Desarrollo de un Modelo de Montos Diferenciados de PSA Considerando el Costo de
Oportunidad Asociado al Uso de la Tierra ” INFORME FINAL
Verified Carbon Standard, (2014). Jurisdictional and Nested REDD+ (JNR) Requirements, version 3.2 of October 30,
2014, 57p. (http://www.v-c-s.org).
Walker, R., (2004). Theorizing Land-Cover and Land-Use Change: The Case of Tropical Deforestation. International
Regional Science Review, 27(3), 247–270. doi:10.1177/0160017604266026
World
Bank, (2013).
FCPF Carbon Fund Methodological Framework, December
(https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/carbon-fund-methodological-framework
20,
2013.
39p.
230
References and annexes available online to the public
Análisis de la significancia de la degradación en Costa Rica
Auto-evaluación de las Relevant stakeholders
Caso de estudio por el Bank Information Center
Datos y métodos para la construcción del nivel de referencia
Estrategia Nacional REDD+ (versión 30/09/15 para consulta)
Estudio de tenencia de la tierra
Evaluación de la situación sobre la tenencia y los regímenes de tierra
Herramienta para la estimación de emisiones y absorciones
Herramientas de comunicación
Ideas iniciales del Programa de Reducción de Emisiones (ER-PIN)
Informe técnico sobre el nivel de referencia para el Fondo de Carbono
Informe técnico sobre producción de madera por la Oficina Nacional Forestal
inventario forestal nacional
Inventario nacional de gases de efecto invernadero de Costa Rica para el año 2010
Mapas de uso y cobertura del suelo
Marco de Gestión Ambiental y Social
Matriz de riesgos y oportunidades
Mecanismo de Información, Retroalimentación e Inconformidades
Metodología para la definición de las medidas propuestas
Plan Nacional de Desarrollo
Plan Nacional de Desarrollo Forestal
Programa financiero de planeación para la reducción de emisiones en Costa Rica
Propuesta de PSA para campesinos y productores forestales
Propuesta de PSA para territorios indígenas
Reporte sobre la etapa de información
Reporte sobre la etapa de pre-consulta
Reporte sobre la planeación y estimación financiera de REDD+
231

Costa Rica - The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility

Transcription

Similar documents

Costa Rica | June 21 – July 1

List of universities in Costa Rica

Folie 1

Climate Change solutions in Madagascar: The role of forests

What is a REDD + community carbon pool?

ajga 2016 poster

Lote Epic - RE/MAX Prestige Ocean Properties

Organic - Royal Coffee New York

Los combustibles fósiles liberan bióxido de carbono al quemarse e

referral broker program